Standing Committee A

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Ordered, 
 That the Programming Order of 9th January be amended— 
 (1) in paragraph (1), at the end, by inserting the words '(save on the afternoon of 
 Tuesday 16th January, when the Committee may sit until half past Nine o'clock, and 
 on the afternoon of Thursday 18th January, when the Committee may sit until Four 
 o'clock)'; and 
 (2) in the Table, by leaving out the entry in the third column in respect of the 8th sitting 
 and inserting instead '4 p.m.'—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 4 - Cancellation of registration

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 69, in page 3, line 31, leave out `28' and insert `60'.—[Mr. Bercow.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Bill O'Brien: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 70, in page 3, line 31, at end insert
`without good cause or reason'.
 No. 74, in clause 10, page 6, line 41, leave out `28' and insert `14'.

Michael Fabricant: The Committee will be relieved to know that I was beginning to conclude my comments. I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which were powerful, logical and symmetrical.

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I note that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has not taken the opportunity, as I hoped he would, to withdraw the comments that he made this morning about me, the chief constable of Staffordshire and himself? I want to put that on the record.

Bill O'Brien: I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman withdrew his comments, at my request.

Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. O'Brien, and I apologise if I misunderstood. I understood that the hon. Member for Lichfield agreed with your request not to proceed with a discussion on these matters. May I clarify with you, Mr. O'Brien, that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his comment suggesting that I instructed or exhorted the chief constable of Staffordshire not to provide him with information that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to have as a Member of Parliament?

Bill O'Brien: I was given to understand that, following my appeal to the hon. Member for Lichfield, he withdrew his comment, encouraged by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. Hansard will show that the matter was put to rest. I suggested that that would be best, and the hon. Gentleman accepted that.

Michael Fabricant: I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham what URL stands for. It is the address of a website and I promised to let the Committee know. I have made exhaustive inquiries with the Library and it stands for uniform resource locator.

Charles Clarke: On the point of order, I accept that the hon. Member for Lichfield formally withdrew his allegations about me in the Committee in response to your request, Mr. O'Brien. I am grateful to you for requesting that and I am pleased that it is on the record that he withdrew it. He made an outrageous and inappropriate slur.
 The hon. Member for Lichfield asked whether a Minister ever gives the answer, ``I do not know.'' My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made it clear in his speech during our proceedings last week that he was not omniscient. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, busy as he was, was unable to hear that. When I ask myself why the hon. Member for Lichfield behaves as he does, I reply, ``I don't know.'' When I ask myself, ``What is he for?'', I reply, ``I don't know.'' 
 The hon. Member for Lichfield asked what is the motive for the clause. Its motive is simple and clear—to have an up-to-date register that can assist with enforcement of the law. Perhaps we did not set that out clearly enough, so I am grateful to him for getting me to set it out more clearly. The motive is clear. It is to establish a means by which the register can be steadily, coherently, consistently and fairly updated so that it can be properly used to enforce the law. 
 What is the reason for the 28-day figure in the clause? I acknowledge, in response to the arguments that have been put, that there is an arbitrary nature to any number of days that is chosen, whether it is 28, 35, 42 or 21. However, the reason was adduced when we debated number plates, and was simple and clear. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964—I anticipate the knowledge of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on this matter—set out the period of 28 days and we felt, when we were drafting the Bill, that consistency was a virtue. We have heard of no problems arising as a result of the period of 28 days being specified in that Act.

Anne McIntosh: Will the register and the amendments to it be posted on the net?

Michael Fabricant: What is the URL?

Charles Clarke: It is not the job of a Minister, certainly not myself, to answer every question. Samuel Johnson might have had more to offer. Nor can I help the hon. Gentleman on the URL.
 As we said when discussing the register in relation to number plate supplies, we envisage that the register will be available publicly on the net, but we intend to consult on precisely what information will be available and how it operates once the Bill has been considered by both Houses.

Andrew Miller: I find myself in slight danger of agreeing with the hon. Member for Buckingham and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would help me out. In the clause to which reference has been made, the Act is clear, but I have not picked up in this clause how there is protection, for example, for the one-man operator who is in hospital with a heart attack. The clause is permissive—``A local authority may''—but a supercilious official could go over the top. Is there any protection in the Act for such a person?

Charles Clarke: There are protections, which I shall come to in a second. I should emphasise—I did not do so in opening—that I regard the probing nature of the debate as entirely reasonable. It is a perfectly fair issue. The appropriate period of time is a balance of judgment. We picked 28 days to achieve consistency with the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, of which we have heard no criticism; certainly not from Government Members. We have not heard that the 28-day period has given rise to problems caused by holiday, illness or whatever one could imagine. It might have done so but, so far as we are aware, it has not done so in relation to the Act.

John Bercow: I take note of what the Minister says about the scrap metal sector. Could he advise me about the average size of scrap metal dealers—I do not mean their physical size, but the size of their businesses—compared with motor salvage operators, because that might be relevant? Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), does he accept that if, in the scrap metal sector, there are very few micro-businesses and fewer still businesses run by a single person, the problem that I originally identified and to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred will not arise? That might explain why there has been no protest.

Charles Clarke: The short answer to that is ``I don't know''; nor do I think that I can give guidance on this matter now. The hon. Member for Buckingham is right, but it does not follow that because one industry sector industry works with a certain time scale, another should necessarily do the same. We felt it necessary to discuss the 28-day period, but it is better to stay at 28 days throughout. I acknowledge that there is an arbitrary aspect to that. However, it would not be sensible to include periods of 14 days and 60 days as well.

Michael Fabricant: Another potential difference between the regimes for the scrap metal and salvage industries is the ease with which people may get back on to the register. If someone were to be struck off the register because, for whatever reason, they had not been trading for 28 days—we have heard examples of how that might arise—how easy would it be for them to get back on to it? What will be the attitude of the organisations that enforce the Bill—I am not sure whether the police or the district councils will prosecute—to people who recommence trading before they are able to get back on to the register?

Charles Clarke: Again, that is a fair point. A four-stage process is involved. First, the local authority must be satisfied that the business has not been carried on for at least 28 days. Being on holiday for the relevant period does not necessarily count as not carrying on a business, because a business can exist even if it is not actually trading at a particular point for a particular reason. Secondly, in accordance with clause 5(2), the authority has to notify the company of its proposed action and provide a further 14 days for representations to be made. I accept that problems may arise if notices are piling up in a dead-letter box. However, most businesses, even one-person businesses, have a mail-handling system that can deal with that.
 Thirdly, the company can appeal—on the grounds of a heart attack, a holiday or whatever—against the local authority's decision to suspend it. Fourthly—I come to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Lichfield—if the company is rejected, it can apply straight away for readmission to the register with immediate effect. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about the four-stage process.

Andrew Miller: I missed the word ``proposing'' in clause 5(2), so my hon. Friend's clarification is extremely helpful. There has to be a warning shot across the bows, followed by a legitimate response from the business or—as in the case that I mentioned—the spouse of the person in hospital.
 I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) that my attraction towards the view expressed by the hon. Member for Buckingham has substantially diminished.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn is liberal in his approach to such matters. His whole demeanour and style is intended to encourage open debate and the fair exchange of ideas, in the best traditions of this Government. That is an effective way of proceeding.
 We chose the period of 28 days to ensure that the entire process was kept up to date. The 28-day period came from previous legislation and we did not believe that there was sufficient reason to create a different time scale. In a belt-and-braces sense, the four-stage process will ensure that the provision is properly carried through. Although I accept the legitimacy of the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, I hope that he will agree that the Bill is reasonably drafted and that he will therefore withdraw his amendments.

John Bercow: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I would not go so far as to say that I entirely accept his reasoning or the Bill's present drafting, but it is incumbent on us to reflect carefully on the points that he has made, and that we will do. We may or may not return to these issues, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Right to make representations

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 4, line 9, leave out `and'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
`and; (d) the procedure for re-registration'.

John Bercow: Clause 5 relates to the right to make representations and follows logically from clause 4, which provides for the cancellation of registration. I shall not use a French expression, Mr. O'Brien; were I to do so, you would chide me. However, we have been down this track before in relation to another part of the Bill. It was a matter of some concern to my hon. Friends and me that the clauses appeared to provide no specific procedure for re-registration. That led us to fear that the Government might be thinking that once someone had been de-registered, the opportunity for him or her to re-register would not arise.
 I was assuaged at the time by the Minister who replied, but given the other provisions in the Bill, I am still uncomfortable with the idea that it is sensible not to provide for the option and possibility of re-registration. The problem can be simply stated. The Secretary of State should not be able to assume that a de-registered person will never be allowed or inclined to reapply for the register. The circumstances in which someone might be so inclined are readily imaginable. 
 Even if our amendments were accepted, the de-registration process would still make it possible for legitimate companies to be removed from the register. There is no question of preventing a person from being de-registered where and when appropriate, but the Bill should provide the opportunity for that person to be re-registered when circumstances change. We want to alter the de-registration process to allow genuine businesses to reapply when circumstances have changed in such a way that they wish to reapply. 
 The de-registration process should also include sufficient information on being added to the register once more. After all, the register is an enabling rather than disabling device. Access to it should be made as easy as possible for legitimate businesses. At present, that does not seem to be the case. I am still not entirely clear why that is so, and I confess to being—if it is not an incorrect, inappropriate or trite term to use in this week of the parliamentary calendar—somewhat foxed as to why the Government are resisting what seems a fairly reasonable proposal. 
 I hope that the Ministers and the Whip have come to realise that, consistently throughout our deliberations, my hon. Friends and I have tried to make our points in a reasonable way, and not at inordinate length. I have advanced the basic argument before, so I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The point is made and I am genuinely interested to hear comments from other members of the Committee, but I am particularly interested in the authoritative view of the Government.

Michael Fabricant: I agree with my hon. Friend that this clause follows logically from clause 4. Similarly, the points that I wish to make follow logically from my question to the Minister about the possibility of a person's removal from the register when there is no criminal reason to do so. However, it was reassuring and useful to hear that simply not trading for 28 days will not necessarily mean that one is deemed not to be in business for that time.

John Bercow: Far be it from me to deflect my hon. Friend from pursuing his argument, but although he has made a good point about the distinction between ceasing to trade and ceasing to be in business, it has unfortunately eluded me thus far. I should therefore be grateful for his clarification.

Michael Fabricant: In that direction I look to the Minister, who said—I hope that he will intervene if I misrepresent him—that where someone is away on business or on holiday and no transactions take place, the business will not necessarily be deemed to have ceased trading per se. Therefore, the authority would not necessarily issue a notice to say that the company has ceased trading for 28 days and will be taken off the register. Given that the Government have decided that this 28-day rule will still stand, I can understand the concern of people in the salvage industry that they might, inadvertently, be taken off the register. For that reason, the amendments—which would add the words ``the procedure for re-registration'' as information that would be provided to the person being taken off the register—are important.
 The Minister, for all sorts of different reasons, may say that he is not prepared to accept the amendments. He gave an undertaking to the Committee this morning that, after consultation with local authorities and the salvage industry, there would be a plan to introduce a standardised form throughout England and Wales. In addition to the standardised form and its questions, there should be either a booklet or notes attached to the form, including information about how those who are de-registered can re-register.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful, in that context, if any advisory material from the central authority made it clear whether a person seeking to re-register would be obliged to state the fact of his or her former de-registration and the circumstances and reasons for it?

Michael Fabricant: I did not quite follow what my hon. Friend was asking. Was he saying that the person applying for registration should make that statement or that the authority managing the register should make that information known to the applicant?

John Bercow: It is rare indeed for my hon. Friend and I to misunderstand each other in any way, but it appears that there is some uncertainty on this occasion. I am describing a situation in which somebody who has, at some stage, been de-registered seeks to re-register. Given that the personnel of the authority will change and that there may be a limited period in which records are kept, does my hon. Friend think that any guidance should be provided on the re-registration process to indicate that the individual seeking to re-register should have to declare the fact the he or she was once de-registered and the reason for it?

Michael Fabricant: I assume that records would be kept by the authority concerned, even though the numbers of personnel in the authority might change. My hon. Friend has made an interesting point on which I dare say the Minister will comment. It may be more useful if it were obligatory for it to be made clear why the person was taken off the register in the first place, although I believe that there is provision for that in clause 5. I shall go further, Mr. O'Brien; I am going to get off the shelf—or fence—and disagree with my hon. Friend. It is not necessary for the applicant to have to remind the authority—which took him off in the first place—that he was taken off.

John Bercow: I am a little concerned. My hon. Friend's self-effacing quality is universally understood and revered in the House, but I hope that he will not over-egg the pudding. Although it was probably an infelicitous use of terminology, there is no question of my hon. Friend being on the shelf. He is dynamic, exuberant, one of the great men of the present and one of the leading lights, I feel sure, of the future.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is an expert on the matter, as he could be a future Prime Minister—

Bill O'Brien: Order. The accolades are good, but the amendments are narrow. Hon. Members should stick to them.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister may want to intervene; if so, I give way.

Charles Clarke: We would certainly celebrate in the event that the hon. Gentlemen and his hon. Friend were to be leading lights in their party. We would feel that that was a positive step. Given the major split and disagreement that has emerged, will he clarify which is the common-sense solution? Is it his solution or that of the hon. Member for Buckingham?

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is demonstrating his incisiveness. Clearly, I feel that I have the more common-sense view. I, of course, always listen to my Front Bench. I listen even more to the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who, I am relieved to see, is not in the Committee at present. My serious point, which I hope that the Minister will address, is that there should be not only a standardised form—which the Minister has conceded would be a good idea—but standardised explanatory notes, including instructions on how to re-register and guidelines to local authorities on how quickly such a re-registration might take place. I accept that an initial registration might take time, as inquiries have to be made of the police and other relevant authorities. However, a re-registration arising from someone being struck off—perhaps because of inadvertent non-compliance with the regulations, and not because of an illegal act—would merit being dealt with more quickly. The Minister might also consider setting time guidelines as targets for local authorities, with regard to registration and re-registration.

Anne McIntosh: I am feeling a little left out, as I seem to be the only lady-in-waiting. Hon. Members should not be misled by the fact that I am sitting on the Front Bench—I am only covering for an hon. Friend who is not present.
 I want to support the amendments, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and for Lichfield have so eloquently spoken. I am concerned about clause 4(5), which stipulates that, when a person's application for registration has been refused, that person's registration need not be reconsidered for a full three years from the date at which the cancellation took effect. For that reason, the amendments, which are consequential on each other, are especially important. 
 With the greatest respect to the Minister, I ask him to clarify the Government's thinking in relation to the cancellation of someone's registration. It is extremely important to understand what would be the procedure for re-registration. Three full years is an arbitrary period, after which, in my experience, it would be extremely difficult for someone to re-enter the market and seek registration. Will the Minister explain why the period of three years was chosen? In addition, is he minded to set out the procedure for re-registration?

Charles Clarke: The fundamental reason for asking the hon. Member for Buckingham to withdraw the amendments is that we consider them redundant. Clause 5(2) provides that, when a local authority proposes to refuse registration—to refuse to renew registration or cancel registration—it should first give notice of its reasons, and provide an opportunity for representations. At that stage, no decision will have been taken by the local authority, and it would not therefore be appropriate to set out the procedure for re-registration. However, when a registration is cancelled, the local authority will tell the person of his right of appeal.
 In relation to the standard form, guidance and procedures, the hon. Member for Lichfield made a fair and correct point, and I am prepared to give him the assurance that he seeks—we will include, in the information to be given to salvage operators, information about how to apply to re-register. Following negotiation and discussion with the Local Government Association, police authorities and so on, after the passage of the Bill—if it is passed—the guidelines issued should cover those points in a way that is clear and understandable to all potential applicants. I also want to make it clear that we do not want to impose an obligation on everyone to make it plain that they have previously been de-registered. In those circumstances, one will simply apply, or not apply.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that he does not anticipate making it obligatory to declare a previous de-registration. However, he will have noted—as, I feel sure, will you, Mr. O'Brien—that I mentioned a few moments ago that there may be a period after which the central authority ceases to keep records on such matters. I was simply speculating aloud on that point—it may be that records are kept. Will the Minister confirm how long they will be kept? In doing so, will he say whether a requirement for disclosure would be entirely redundant? That is for the simple reason that the central authority would know of the de-registration and, doubtless, of the reasons for it.

Charles Clarke: I shall come back to the point about the period for which records will be required to be kept.
 The re-registration procedure will be the same as that for the original registration. If business as a motor salvage operator is recommenced, it will be necessary to register under clause 3 in the exactly the same way as the organisation would have done before. When a person re-registers, the registration process will be set out clearly in the local authority's requirements.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister will recall that I suggested that there should be a quicker process of deliberation by the local authority in the case of a re-registration. First, will the Minister comment on that? Secondly, will he answer my other question about whether the central authority or the Government will set guidelines as to how long the registration process will take?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has already asked about time scales, and I shall answer his question as rapidly as he permits me to do so.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about the three-year period. Just for clarification, let me say that, if the registration is cancelled because trading has ceased, the business can reapply for registration immediately. There is not a three-year gap.The three-year embargo on reapplying under clause 4(5), to which the hon. Lady referred, is when an organisation is struck off for failing the ``fit and proper'' test, but that does not apply to cancellations under clause 4(3). 
 The purpose of the three-year period is to drive the criminals out of business. If a person has been found to be unfit to run a motor salvage business, he should not be able to re-enter the business straight away. That is why we have distinguished between people who were struck off because they were found not to be ``fit and proper'' on the various tests, and those who were struck off because they ceased to trade. In the case of ceasing to trade, a person can immediately reapply, while the three-year gap targets those who are not ``fit and proper''—we are targeting different circumstances.

Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that there is a world of difference between being struck off for some wrongdoing and having a registration cancelled for legitimate business reasons? The use of the term ``struck off'' is both contexts is unfortunate. Surely, when there will be so few occasions when salvage operators wish to re-register there can be a question on the application form about the circumstances of their being previously struck off.

Charles Clarke: If my use of the phrase ``struck off'' in two different circumstances offends—I do not mean offends in a personal way—I shall try reconsider my language. The fundamental point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right: there is a difference between being found not to be a ``fit and proper'' person and ceasing to trade.

John Bercow: Will the Minister allow me to intervene?

Charles Clarke: Not at the moment. I am still sweeping up a number of points. When I have finished doing so, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
 To clarify the point raised by the hon. Member for the Vale of York, let me say that the Bill makes it clear that the three-year gap is not mandatory. A local authority can re-register a motor salvage business earlier if it so chooses. As for putting the information about previous de-registration on the application form—a point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester—I will re-examine the matter and discuss it with other organisations. My initial instinct is that it would be neither necessary nor desirable to take such action, and drag up the past in those circumstances. That is why it is not in the Bill, but his point is fair and I shall reflect on it. 
 I now turn to the time scale point, raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield. The specification on data is much less clear. The data protection legislation requires personal data to be held only for such time as is reasonably necessary, so it depends on the circumstances, and it is a matter on which we will seek to give guidance in the process that we have described. I do not expect local authorities to keep records for more than a few years in such circumstances. We want to consult closely with the industry and local government about the amount of time that it takes to be registered. I acknowledge that it is beneficial to have some guidance on time scale, providing that it is not too rigidly drawn, so that people can reasonably know in what time they might expect to have their application heard and adjudicated.

John Bercow: I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). Without wishing to pursue ad nauseam a semantic point, may I ask the Minster whether he accepts that the essential distinction is between being struck off a register and finding that, because of changed circumstances, a person's registration naturally lapses? Might not the distinction between struck off and naturally lapsing be useful?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's linguistic point has helped to make the matter clear. Thus far, at any rate, I agree that he has focused on the points under discussion throughout our proceedings, and not at inordinate length. I was not certain that that would be the case, but it has been, and I am sure that the Committee, especially Oppositions Members, welcome that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, given that I have tried to clarify as best I can the reasons for the original text under the Bill.

John Bercow: As I believe that the Minister readily understood, I was mainly concerned that someone who was de-registered should have the chance to re-register and should be aware that he or she had that chance. As soon as it is available, I shall take the opportunity to study the Official Report of our proceedings but, as far as I can recall what the Minister said—I have been attending closely to his remarks—he offered sufficient reassurance to cause me to say with alacrity that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Appeals

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 5, line 12, at end insert—
`(2A) The Secretary of State may extend the period specified in subsection (2) where he receives representations in writing after the 21 day period showing good cause why an appeal could not be brought within the given period.'.
 We come to the issue of appeals. In inverse order of appearance in the clause, clause 6 deals with the cancellation of a person's registration in the register for his or her area, a refusal to re-register a person, and a refusal to register an operator in the first instance. Under subsection (2), the Government provide for appeals to be made 
within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person concerned is served with a notice under section 5(7). 
The reference to the 21-day appeal period appears in lines 10 to 12. 
 The amendment that my hon. Friends and I propose would, if incorporated, become paragraph (a). Our anxiety, as I am sure that the Minister will accept even if he disagrees with the amendment, is to ensure that, as far as possible—mistakes will always be made, but we should try to minimise the scope for them—the Secretary of State does not remove legitimate businesses from the register without good cause or reason. 
 We are slightly uneasy about the restrictive 21-day period, which is why we suggest that, if people can show good reason why they were unable to make representations within the 21-day period, representations received after it should be duly considered. I have a hunch—I put it no more strongly than that—that the Minister might feel inclined to resist my amendment. The Minister is now helpfully nodding in a sedentary position while sucking his spectacles, making it clear that he intends to resist.

Charles Clarke: I am trying to avoid being bitten.

John Bercow: The Minister says that he is sucking his spectacles because he is taking precautions to avoid being bitten. I am sympathetic to that, and I believe that he will have struck a chord—or a raw nerve—with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield.
 I am sorry that the Minister intends to resist. I do not want to make the point too strongly, but it is worth saying that there seems to be an element of inconsistency in the Minister's thinking about time periods for making representations, or, in the case of de-registration, the period over which cessation of trade has taken place. I mention that because, a few moments ago, almost in parentheses while developing his own argument, the Minister said that he thought that it was not sensible for the Opposition to propose different time periods. For example, although the Minister disagrees, we think that there are good reasons for suggesting that the 28-day cessation of trade resulting in de-registration should be extended to up to 60 days. On the other hand, I have argued in relation to registration of plate suppliers and to motor salvage operator that, where particulars that should be recorded in the register change over a period, it is reasonable to expect that an individual trader will notify the central authority of those changes, not, as the Government apparently expect, within 28 days, but within 14 days. There are arguments for those different time periods. The consistent theme permeating everything that we say is the need to ensure that the purpose of the Bill is made good. We want it to be effective, robust and consistent. 
 Nevertheless, the Minister was critical. What he is proposing is what we consider a relatively short, almost truncated, time scale, within which representations about refusal of registration, re-registration or a decision to cancel can be made. The period Ministers are commending to the Committee is a week shorter than that over which a cessation of trade would result in deregistration. The Minister might advance reasons for the differential time scales that he thinks are justified, by contrast with ours, in different contexts that apparently are not justified. I await the dexterous manoeuvring of the hon. Gentleman with eager anticipation. Our concern is to ensure that legitimate businesses can continue and that they are not summarily de-registered through a hasty and inadequate procedure that the availability of greater time would have enabled the central authority and the afflicted businesses to avoid. 
 I argued on Second Reading—and the point has been made on a number of occasions during the course of the Committee—that proprietors may be unable to conduct their business due to illness or because they are away from the country. The same could, of course, apply to the making of appeals. For that reason, we propose to allow the Secretary of State to extend the appeal period to avoid those legitimate businesses being removed from the register. As I have said on previous occasions, I would be interested in the views of other hon. Members on this point and in the response of the Minister. 
 Once again continuing, and now perhaps even reinforcing, my growing reputation for succinctness in these matters, I rest my case.

Michael Fabricant: I rise to support the amendment.
 We have already established in Committee today that the sort of company that would be registered could be a small one. It might well be a sole trader; the Minister has already confirmed that fact. I think that he has assured the Committee—he has certainly managed to assure me—that if a business were not trading simply because someone was abroad, either on business or on holiday, it would not be struck off. Nevertheless, a business might be struck off for reasonable causes and not because of any miscreance or breach of the criminal law by the company or partnership. 
 I can envisage a business in crisis as a result of the issue of an announcement that it might be struck off the register. I can imagine a sole trader, perhaps working with his wife and struggling with cash-flow difficulties or creditors, receiving a great deal of mail, all of which might not receive his immediate attention.

John Bercow: That is a worrying scenario. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is regrettable that the hon. Member for Colchester is not present to hear its depiction?

Michael Fabricant: Indeed. The hon. Member for Colchester says that he is the voice of small business. Yet, when small business cries out, where is he? He has left the Room. That is unfortunate, given that on a number of occasions we have supported his amendments, adding our names to his contributions.

Charles Clarke: In light of those remarks, I hesitate to rush to the friendship of the hon. Member for Colchester, who is a fellow East Anglian. However, it is therefore incumbent on the hon. Member for Lichfield to set out in detail where he was last week, where he was bitten and the circumstances that prevented him from being here. If he is going to make comments about others, perhaps he should clarify his position.

Bill O'Brien: Order. Will the hon. Member for Lichfield return to the point?

Michael Fabricant: All I will do is reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester. Where was I bitten? I was bitten down under. Outside the Rook, I might show the Minister precisely where, but it would not be in order to show the marks at this point.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. If he were to do so, your legendary reputation for tolerance would be sorely tested, Mr. O'Brien. To revert to the point with which we preoccupied ourselves in our first sitting last week, if my hon. Friend showed the Minister the details, it would be unfortunate if anyone had a camera. However, it would be less unfortunate for my hon. Friend than for the Labour party—

Bill O'Brien: Order. We have heard so much about the spider that it is time to put it to rest—I assume that it is at rest.

Michael Fabricant: It is at rest because someone who saw it bite me stamped on it. From the Committee's point of view, that is how it should stay; we should return to the amendment.
 It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham argued that 21 days seems an odd period. We discussed 28 days and 14 days, and so on, but chose not to table an amendment altering that period—[Interruption.]

Bill O'Brien: Order.

Michael Fabricant: With typical reasonableness, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has accepted implicitly a 21-day period and tabled an additional subsection, covering extraordinary circumstances when the 21-day period is inadequate and allowing for an appeal to the Secretary of State. We are not asking for a change from 21 days. I would be tempted to ask for 28 days or even 60 days for the reasons that I discussed earlier. However, it seems reasonable that in unusual circumstances an appeal may be made to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be under no obligation to grant an extended period, but I am curious to hear why he would not even entertain someone's application.

David Kidney: Does not the hon. Gentleman's slip of the tongue about where the appeal goes demonstrate why the amendment is fatally flawed? The appeal is to the magistrates court, not to the Secretary of State. What on earth does the Secretary of State have to do with interfering with time limits in courts?

Michael Fabricant: Unusually, because I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, I think that he has missed the point. The appeal will go to the magistrates court, but the court will be bound by the Bill, if it becomes an Act. The question is not why the appeal is made, but why it has not been made within the 21-day time limit. Under other Acts, it is normal for statutory time limits to be altered on appeal to the Secretary of State—
Mr. Kidney indicated dissent.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman disagrees; perhaps he will intervene on me again. The time limit in other Acts can be altered by Secretaries of State from time to time, regardless of whether it relates to an appeal to a magistrates court or a Crown court.

David Kidney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman yields to no one in his admiration of our independent court system and is pleased that they are robustly independent of interference from Ministers of the Crown. We are talking about an appeal to a magistrates court. A statute sets the time limit and it is for the magistrates to implement it—or, if they have the power, to allow the time to be extended. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that the Secretary of State cannot, under the amendment, interfere with an individual decision by the magistrates.

Michael Fabricant: I continue to disagree. This is most unusual because, certainly with regard to magistrates, the hon. Gentleman and I have often had common cause, particularly concerning the plight of magistrates courts in Staffordshire. None the less, I do not follow the logic of his argument, because I do not believe that it has logic.
 The Secretary of State would not be interfering with the magistrates' decision. The amendment would simply enable the Secretary of State to say that the matter could go to the magistrates court for independent consideration. The two issues are separate. The first is whether a magistrate decides on appeal to allow re-registration. The amendment would extend the time limit by which an application can be granted so that a magistrate can hear the appeal. 
 Given that the period of 21 days in subsection (2) would not be altered, it would be inflexible, if not arrogant, of the Government to decide not to accept the amendment. As I have said, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to extend the period. If he felt that the appeal for additional time was nonsensical or spurious, he could refuse it. To say that it must be 21 days and no longer under any circumstances seems unreasonable, particularly for small businesses or sole traders.

Stephen McCabe: Which does the hon. Gentleman think is more unreasonable for the individual—not to extend beyond 21 days the period in which an appeal can be brought or to impose a level 3 fine on someone who does not amend the register or give notice to amend it within 14 rather than 28 days, as proposed in Opposition amendment No. 74 to clause 10?

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman, who is a good friend of mine, may have put his foot in it. He was not present this morning, for I am sure perfectly legitimate reasons. If he had been, he would know that the Minister said that the Government believe that there should be a fine on those who do not give the correct information on application.

Stephen McCabe: I was simply making the point that in this case the hon. Gentleman seeks to extend the period of time, but in the other he seeks to shorten it. Shortening the time would allow people less opportunity to avoid a fine, even though they may have legitimate reasons for doing so. The hon. Gentleman seeks under this amendment to extend the scope for appeal. I am trying to understand the logic.

Michael Fabricant: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The reason for the discrepancy, as he sees it, emerged a little in the debate this morning. In this instance, there may be reasons why someone might not be present to make an appeal. We have been reassured about this to a large degree by the Minister. The example that we gave was that if a person were struck off inadvertently for not trading because he was away for 28 days, he would not be able to make contact with the local licensing authority. In the instance that the hon. Gentleman gives of 16 days, the person would be present and able to say what changes had taken place because, for changes to take place, the business must be trading. That is why there is the discrepancy.
 I do not want to labour the point, as we are going over slightly old ground, but it is clear. We have not asked for the 21-day period to be changed; we are simply saying that it is conceivable that extraordinary circumstances may prevent somebody from making the appeal within that 21-day period. If they are extraordinary circumstances, we should give the Secretary of State additional powers. It is rare for me to propose that we offer extra powers to a Labour Secretary of State, but that is what we are doing in this instance. I hope—and confidently expect—that, after the next election, it will be a Conservative Secretary of State. It certainly will not be a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State. We are simply offering the Secretary of State extra powers to enable him to decide whether the 21-day period is unreasonable in special circumstances for a business that might be a sole trader or a small limited company. 
 On those grounds, it would be churlish, unreasonable, cruel and unthinking— and would, at the very least, demonstrate a lack of understanding of small businesses—if the amendment were not accepted.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State—I am sorry, the Minister; I do not wish to promote him too quickly—would have a reason to refuse to accept the amendment if he were to say that there would be good cause to receive representations in writing after the 21-day period, if that were already allowed under common law. If he were saying that today, we would probably not insist on the amendment. Could he comment on that?
 Secondly, the explanatory notes put quite a high cost on introducing the Bill to industry and the public sector, through the cost to the chief police officers and the Lord Chancellor's Department and the annual cost to the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the Bill and the explanatory notes are silent on the costs of an appeal to a magistrates court. Clearly there will be the cost in loss of business to the appellant, who would have to exercise his right under the Bill if it were passed in its current form, but there will also be an annual cost to the magistrates court for administering the appeals. What would the cost be?

Charles Clarke: It would be widely recognised as being in everybody's interests to resolve disputes of this kind as rapidly as possible. It is certainly in their interests to fight the criminal fraternity. It is also in the interests of the companies concerned to have the matter resolved as quickly as possible, a view that I believe is shared across the Committee.
 It is worth going through the time that we are talking about. We are talking, first, about 28 days, or four weeks, in terms of trading, 14 days of representation to the local authority and then 21 days of the appeal process, as set out here. That is a total of 63 days or nine weeks, which is a fairly lengthy process from beginning to end. 
 We chose 21 days because I gather that there is a precedent in the Care Standards Act 2000, which has a comparable local authority scheme for registering homes. However, in fairness to the hon. Member for Buckingham and other Opposition Members who have spoken, they have not sought to change the 21 days as such, although arguments can be made for 25 days, 28 days or whatever it might be. They seek to establish a different framework. Although, as the hon. Member for Lichfield said, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to grant the appeal, there would an obligation on him to consider it, and to do so reasonably, on the basis of established guidelines, procedures and information that would have to be given to the Secretary of State in making his or her judgment; a whole set of practices would be established. I can see no case for that. I am not lawyer, as I constantly say.

Helen Jones: Sadly.

Charles Clarke: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no sadness on my part, except on the grounds that I am not sharing time with my hon. Friend in court. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is a distinguished lawyer, made the point well. We have a well-established legal structure of appeal to magistrates. We have that because the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 in our law ensure that there cannot be arbitrary justice. In this case, there is, rightly, appeal to the judiciary. The Secretary of State cannot be an alternative to the judiciary, but only a process on the way to it. To establish a complex administrative machine to advise the Secretary of State on the way in which he deals with these questions and moves the process forward is not a desirable way to proceed. I do not seek to demean the motive, but the proposal would over-complicate the situation. The hon. Gentleman's motive would be better achieved by seeking to extend the 21 days than by setting in motion a time-consuming process that would not benefit anybody.

John Bercow: The Minister has provoked a thought in my mind that is not covered by our amendment but is none the less relevant. Given that the Government are anxious in this context to specify a period of 21 days within which someone should make an appeal, will he say something about the time scale within which magistrates courts would determine appeals? My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield rightly referred to the financial implications for businesses, and clearly the efficiency, effectiveness and speed with which these appeals are determined is a matter of the highest importance.

Charles Clarke: Before I answer that, Mr. O'Brien, I shall take an intervention from the hon. Member for Lichfield, and I shall try to deal with both of them at the same time.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister. He rightly said that we have not chosen to extend the 21 days, and I concur with some of his arguments for not including our proposed paragraph. If he recognises that the 21-day period is to some degree arbitrary and that, in a crisis, 21 days may be difficult for a small business, will he consider tabling an amendment on Report to extend the 21-day period?

Charles Clarke: I cited the period involved in the process, which adds up to nine weeks—the 28 days, 14 days and 21 days. At none of those junctures have I included the time taken by the local authority to consider whether it will suspend the registration; the time that it takes to reconsider the representations that are made; and the time taken by the magistrates court to consider the appeal—the point to which the hon. Member for Buckingham referred. I do not want to comment on the specific time taken by the magistrates court, as that is a matter for the judicial process in the regular way. Nine weeks, however, is the minimum period, given that the whole process would be significantly longer.
 It is not a matter of simply accepting the argument of the hon. Member for Lichfield that the 21-day period is arbitrary. I agree that an element of balance and arbitrary judgment is involved, but we chose the 21 days because local authorities use a similar system when registering homes in such circumstances and we believe that a similarity between different schemes was the way forward. 
 As with the previous debate, I would need to hear a positive argument to move to a system that was not already well established. I do not wish to establish a process that involves the Secretary of State contesting the local authority's judgment. In my short experience as a member of the Government, I know that there are a massive number of processes when the Government are brought in to adjudicate on specific issues. That can be time-consuming for all concerned, requiring a series of processes, which is not efficient. 
 As for the two points made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, the costs to the magistrates courts are covered in paragraph 65 of the explanatory notes, which state that the annual 
cost of additional prosecutions to the Lord Chancellor's Department...would be £16,612. 
Assuming that there might be 150 appeals per annum, the cost would be £61,612. The annual cost to the Crown Prosecution Service is also referred to in the explanatory notes. Such sums are a small price to pay for driving criminals out of the motor salvage industry. As for her point about common law, I am not a lawyer—let alone a Scottish lawyer—so I cannot comment in detail now. However, I shall write to her in due course. Given the points that I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reasoning, for which there is some justification. Being keen to be a stickler for procedural propriety, the hon. Gentleman gave the impression of being fairly insouciant about the length of time that the determination of appeals might take, but that is not something about which I feel comparable insouciance.

Charles Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman had seen me in my private moments, he would know that I am not insouciant about the matter. The time taken to resolve matters by the Crown court and the magistrates court is one of the most serious problems in our criminal justice system, which is why I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked Lord Justice Auld to conduct a full-scale review of such matters to achieve much faster justice. That will be better for all concerned. I should not like it to be put on the record that I am in any sense relaxed about such matters.

John Bercow: I am very much reassured by the Minister's argument. It was almost as though someone invisible and unbeknown to me had crept into the Room and delivered a sharp kick to his posterior. He had given the impression of being relaxed and indifferent about the matter, but I am happy to take it from him that he is far from that. It may be that he wanted to make other points, but I am glad that he is concerned about such matters.
 The Minister will recognise that there is an element of quid pro quo and simple fair play involved. What do I mean by that? If we judge it right to impose obligations upon businesses—it being right and proper that we should do so from time to time; particularly about the time within which things are to be done—it is not unreasonable that we should apply similar principles to our own behaviour or to that of institutions that, through legislation, are involved in the process. I recognise that magistrates courts are properly independent of the House; nevertheless, their involvement in the process is the result of, and attendant upon, the passage of legislation. 
 The Minister could send a clear signal today, and subsequently on Report, that he expects proper progress to be made. I do not understand why it should take all that long to determine an appeal as, in most cases, the particulars should be straightforward. These will not be the sorts of complex fraud cases tried in the criminal courts; in most instances, they will be straightforward matters. Therefore, although appeals should not take a long time, it is important to establish as a principle that they should not, and that a quick decision must be made on whether businesses should be allowed to continue.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point regarding the need for such matters to be dealt with quickly, if only to stimulate the business to carry on trading. Does he agree that we should, therefore, maintain the lay magistracy?

Bill O'Brien: Order. That is totally out of order.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend was tempting me to indulge in improper behaviour; as you know, Mr. O'Brien, I am loath ever to indulge in such behaviour, being a great respecter of the traditions of the House.

Charles Clarke: Once bitten, twice shy.

John Bercow: The Minister, who is in a spectacularly good, but spectacularly corny, mood observes from a sedentary position, ``Once bitten, twice shy.'' We have done the point to death—almost as clinically as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield did the aforementioned spider to death, for which I do not blame him. Notwithstanding the principle of kindness to animals, my hon. Friend could hardly be expected not to respond with alacrity to the injury inflicted upon him.
 The Minister has made some useful points this afternoon. He and his hon. Friends will note that I am, if not non-committal on the subject, reluctant to endorse everything he said. There is merit in reading the record and spending a period of time reflecting on the arguments; why should one not do so, given that Report follows this Committee? There will be an opportunity to return to these matters—or not, depending on the merits of the case. I am not minded to pursue the issue now; I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave,withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Keeping of records

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: My hon. Friends and I have not tabled any amendments to this clause or to clause 8; neither has the hon. Member for Colchester, despite the bold claims he made for himself earlier. However, that does not mean that we should not ask relevant questions.
 The point in the clause that caught my eye—I am sure that it occurred to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, too—is in subsection (4) and, by implication, subsection (3). That subsection specifies that ``regulations under this section''—in other words, regulations providing for the keeping of records by registered persons— 
may specify provisions of the regulations as provisions to which subsection (4) applies. 
That is an enabling device, and may be none the worse for it. However, I am a trifle concerned and do not think that the matter should go by without explanation from the Minister. 
 Subsection (4)—for the elucidation of all interested parties—states that a 
person who contravenes any provision to which this subsection applies shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. 
That is a provision for an offence and a fine for the offence, but subsection (3) tells us that regulations made under it may specify provisions to which the offence and the fine will apply. Although it confers upon the Secretary of State an enabling power, it fights shy of the detail; it does not say what the offences may typically be, and that causes me some concern. 
 We know that many matters are dealt with through regulation. However, I am bound to say—my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will no doubt concur—that the trend towards more government by regulation and the onward march of secondary legislation are matters of considerable concern and regret. I recognise that it happens, but am concerned about the extent to which it happens, and the fact that regulations can be made in circumstances that legislators could not have predicted at the time. It is worth emphasising my concerns even more if the regulations, which would elaborate on points and create new offences and fines, were not themselves to be the subject of the affirmative procedure of the House, but nodded through by the infinitely inferior negative procedure.

Michael Fabricant: Given the increasing tendency of the Government towards secondary legislation, does my hon. Friend share my lack of surprise that the Institute of Directors and the Institute of Management have both expressed concern over regulations that are not contained in Bills? They were not referring to this Bill—[Interruption.]

Bill O'Brien: Order. There should not be sedentary interruptions.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend share my lack of surprise at the concern expressed by those bodies about proposals which, although they are not in the Bill, provide a burden on businesses?

John Bercow: I am certainly not surprised that representative business organisations have expressed concern about this trend. There is good reason for that concern.

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Member for Buckingham take the opportunity of confirming that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Lichfield has stated, neither the Institute of Directors nor the Institute of Management has objected to the clauses that we are debating? I may, I admit, have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Reputable industry bodies are in favour of the regulations because they want to drive out the criminals in their midst.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I said that those bodies had objected not to this Bill, but to others.

Bill O'Brien: That is not a point of order.

John Bercow: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. O'Brien. It may not have been a point of order, but it was a point eloquently made by my hon. Friend, and I hope that he can rest content that he has made it so clearly.
 The Minister is right to say that the organisations want to get on with the job, do not object to the regulations and are anxious to tackle the criminals. That is all well and good, and the Minister is justified in referring to that and invoking it in his support. However, I hope that he will not trample on the notion of procedural propriety. The fact that interested parties can broadly envisage the regulations, and predict with confidence and approve of their purpose, does not obviate the need for rational discussion about those regulations. That is especially relevant when they involve the creation of offences and of penalties for offences. 
 It is no surprise that the Institute of Directors and other august industry representative bodies have not complained about the clause. I intend no discourtesy to clause 7, in so far as it has a personality to offend, but it is relatively small beer in the scheme of things. The Minister should be aware that there is a veritable avalanche of legislation and regulation with which businesses can legitimately preoccupy themselves, and about which they can and do complain. So the clause is unlikely to be a hot item on their agenda for immediate protest. 
 Nevertheless, my point stands. Even if the detailed draft regulations on the keeping of records are not yet available—I do not see a good reason why they should not be available on Report—[Interruption.] I put that to the Minister as a request, which seems to have caused a frisson of excitement. It should be possible to give an idea of the sorts of failures, omissions or improprieties in relation to record keeping that would constitute offences, and which would therefore be subject to penalty. 
 The clause is very short, and sets out a straightforward and entirely unobjectionable purpose. I therefore cannot see why the range of offences should be infinite. Indeed, it is not made clear, in relation to record keeping, that the range of offences could be extensive. I do not understand why it is necessary to have a Henry VIII clause—or, rather, Henry VIII subsection. Why cannot the point be elucidated before we are invited to assent to the clause? In terms of reasonableness, I do not think that I can be bettered.

Charles Clarke: On this occasion, in terms of brevity, the hon. Gentleman can. It might assist Committee members—this is the first clause in this part of the Bill to which an amendment has not been tabled—were I to say that I am more than happy, in any clause stand part debate, to respond to a simple request to clarify the clause's intention. I shall now proceed to do so.
 The clause enables us to make regulations for the keeping of records by motor salvage operators. A sound system of record keeping is essential to good regulation, which is necessary because of the opportunities offered by the motor salvage industry for the disposal or recirculation of stolen vehicles or their parts. The clause makes it clear that former and currently registered salvage operators will be covered by the regulations, which means that salvage operators may be required to keep records even after they have stopped operating. That is essential if the record making scheme is to be complete and reliable. The police may need an audit trail—part of it may relate to a former salvage operator—which is a key element in the intelligence needed to detect the kind of crime committed. The clause also allows us, through regulations, to designate breaches of certain record-keeping requirements—for example, the way in which the information should be held, the type of information that should be held, and the need to keep information on every car. However, further consultation is necessary. 
 We have been keen throughout to engage in consultation, which is why the precise nature of the regulations will be subject to consultation with the industry, police and the Local Government Association. The Cabinet Office guidance, which we seek to honour, suggests that we must consult for three months before drafting the final set of regulations. We are committed to that because everybody, in the House and outside, is suspicious of Governments who engage in rapid consultation that does not allow people to make their point. I cannot meet the request of the hon. Member for Buckingham to provide draft regulations on Report, but I commit myself to the consultation process, which I shall lay before the House for full consideration. 
 This clause on record keeping—and clause 8—is an essential part of our approach. I am happy to explain that fully to the Committee; we have no desire not to discuss such matters.

Michael Fabricant: I do not share the concerns of my hon. Friend for Buckingham about subsections (3) and (4). If records are to be kept, they clearly need to be enforced. Indeed, we said that earlier about making false applications. I am concerned about the very crux of the clause, subsection (1), which states:
 The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the keeping of records by registered persons. 
To what extent will the records place a burden on small businesses? 
 The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and I had the joy of serving together on Committees considering the Maidstone council Bill and the Kent County Council Bill, in which the sponsors went out of their way to say that the records that would have to be kept by second-hand dealers would not be a regulatory burden.

Jonathan R Shaw: For correction of the record, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember, the Bill was called the Medway—not Maidstone—Council Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. The Committees sat for some weeks, which the hon. Member for Hall Green and I might not wish to remember in detail.

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that amassing records of passage of trade and illegal trade are the very reasons behind the Kent and Medway Bills to which he refers? The Kent Bill is strongly supported by the chief constable of Kent, but has been opposed by many former Opposition Members—I note not me—who sought to kill it off. The Government must be non-partisan on the matter, but we understand why the Bills are before Parliament. Records must be kept under this Bill for exactly the same reason. We must understand the business of people who are illegally trading to be able to deal with it. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the keeping of records, will he clarify whether he intends to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill? I must tell him that, to the Government, the clause is very important to fighting vehicle crime.

Michael Fabricant: Of course I am not against the keeping of records. Indeed, I should like to make it clear that I support the idea of the Medway and Kent Bills. My only objection is that they are not nationwide. I do not want to drift to another Bill, but for the record, if I have any objection at all, it is that it may cause a transference of crime activity from Kent into neighbouring counties. The principle of the Bills is good; I wish they were Government Bills and applied to England, Wales and Scotland.
 The Minister makes a powerful point; of course records must be kept. I mentioned the Medway and Kent Bills because the police recognise that, although records have to be kept, small businesses—second-hand dealers, just as salvage dealers, might well be small businesses—should not have to suffer too much burden. The point was made in the Committee considering those two Bills that the records to be kept would be no more than that which, as good practice, any business ought to keep: details of both sales and purchases.

Charles Clarke: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman on this point. I accept that the provision should not be a burden. It is precisely for that reason that we have consulted small businesses, and will continue to do so, on the basis of a commitment to restricting the keeping of records to what is absolutely essential, taking account of records that are held for other purposes—exactly the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that that assurance helps him in his argument.

Michael Fabricant: That assurance is helpful. Will people holding such records be obliged to let them be viewed by the police or other authorities? For example, will they be obliged to photocopy them? If those records are kept on computer, will there be a standard form in which they must be kept? Will the discs containing the data have to be provided to the relevant authorities?

John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is elaborating on the extent of the burden. Will he confirm to me that he is motivated to make that point, at least in part, by his recollection of an observation made on 20 January 2000—it has almost reached its first anniversary—by the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Chris Humphries? He observed:
 Despite its rhetoric the reality is that the Government have dramatically increased the regulatory burden that threatens small business competitiveness. 
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government have conducted preliminary consultation with business about the nature and detail of the regulations under this measure—I do not doubt that Ministers, or at least their agents, have done so—there is no good reason why, to aid and abet our consideration of the Bill, we should not have sight of the draft regulations before Report?

Michael Fabricant: I understand the Minister's point about consultation. If it is to be in depth, it is unlikely—unless Report is more than three months from now—that the information will be available. Does the Minister envisage that Report might be more than three months from now? Can he give us an insight into when this Parliament might be dissolved?
 The remarks by Chris Humphries are foremost in my mind. They are also the views of many small businesses. I hope that the Minister has some idea of the type of records that must be kept. To what degree will those records be over and above those that must be kept under tax law and the Companies Acts? Does he envisage the burden of keeping such records being 100 per cent. more than is currently required? 
 A salient point arose in Committee on the Medway Council Bill and the Kent County Council Bill. During those proceedings, the assistant chief constable of Kent made it clear that duplicate records did not have to be kept. For example, if records of transactions were kept to meet Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue or Companies Acts requirements, they would also suffice to meet the requirements of the Medway Council Bill and the Kent County Council Bill. Will the Minister confirm that it will not be necessary for traders to duplicate records and keep separate books to meet the requirements of clause (9)(1)? 
 I will be less inclined to vote against the clause if the Minister can reassure me on these two points: first, that there will not be an excessive burden over and above that which is already in place regarding indirect taxation and company law; and, secondly, that separate books will not need to be kept.

Charles Clarke: This has been a helpful exchange, and I emphasise that I am happy to have this type of debate to clarify the situation. First, who inspects the records is set out in clause 9(2)(b), which states that a constable may at any reasonable time
 Require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a motor salvage operator is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part. 
That is a police right to inspect; it is not a general right to inspect. It empowers a constable to take copies or extracts. It does not require the organisation itself to keep duplicate copies to hand over to the police at any particular time. It requires the records to be kept and access to them to be given to the police. 
 On excess, subject to my general points about the need to consult the industry widely—which I mean most sincerely; this is a serious proviso—the key elements of record keeping that we have in mind are the names of purchasers and vendors and the identity of the vehicles, whether defined by number plate or by other means. I am not an expert on tax and company law, but I believe that those aspects would not necessarily be required as part of tax or company records, although VAT records might require the identity of purchasers and vendors. I can give an assurance that in constructing the requirements—a standard form was rightly mentioned—and in establishing and consulting on it, we seek to minimise the data additional to that already kept by companies, although we need the key information.

John Bercow: Does the Minister have any objection in principle to the provision of draft regulations before the conclusion of the passage of the Bill in the House? If not, can he envisage that happening in this case?

Charles Clarke: I have no objection in principle. There are serious practical questions about what has to be done, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point before we meet again later this week.
 The hon. Member for Lichfield correctly identified a genuine dilemma. If we go into consultation implying that most of the proposal is signed, sealed and delivered beforehand, we are subject to the charge of not being genuinely interested in the results of consultation. If, on the other hand, we do not provide the documentation to the House in the way mentioned, we are subject to the charge of not allowing Parliament to have its say. As always, this Government tread these narrow paths extremely delicately and effectively, and will continue to do so in this case. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman further on the matter. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Rights to enter and inspect premises

Bob Russell: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 6, line 8, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.

Bill O'Brien: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 43, in clause 15, page 7, line 41, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.
 No. 47, in page 8, line 42, after `yard', insert `or other premises'. 
 No. 48, in page 8, line 43, after `yard', insert `or other premises'. 
 No. 49, in page 9, line 1, after `yard', insert `or other premises'. 
 No. 50, in page 9, line 8, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.

Bob Russell: The amendment addresses a small point. I cannot understand why the phrase ``motor salvage yard'' is used in every case. To most people, the term ``yard'' conveys the idea of an open area. It is generally understood that a motor salvage business can, and does, occupy physical buildings. Those can be warehouse-type structures or roofed buildings, such as Dutch barns. It could be argued some of those large containers can hide a good deal of illegal activity. The Bill fails to take account of the idea that the business of a breaking dealer can be conducted in a range of premises. In order to remove any doubt, the term ``motor salvage business'' rather than ``motor salvage yard'' would cover all the points of possible concern and confusion without altering the thrust of the clause.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Member for Colchester, by the clear and blunt language in which he puts his point, makes a consistent and coherent assault on the prize awarded to the common-sense member of the Committee. However, I think that I can help him. Clause 15(1) defines the meaning of ``motor salvage yard''. It means:
any premises where any motor vehicles are received or kept in the course of the carrying on of business as a motor salvage operator so far as the business consists of any of the activities mentioned in section 1(2) (excluding any premises where only salvageable parts of motor vehicles are so received or kept). 
That comprehensive definition clearly sets out the position for anyone who wants to read the Bill. We have chosen to use that particular phrase because it specifically incorporates all other premises. The addition of the phrase ``or other premises'' is therefore unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Bob Russell: I will seek to withdraw the amendment, but I have not yet been told why the word ``yard'' has been used, given that it is necessary to explain what a yard is. If we were to use instead the phrase ``motor salvage business'', such an explanation would not be necessary. The business is the activity, and the yard is the place.

Charles Clarke: Even if we used the phrase ``motor salvage premises'', which might be clearer than ``motor salvage yard'', it would still be necessary to define such a key term. Every Bill has to define key terms so that they can be set out in law. Whatever phrase we use, clause 15(1) would have to clarify it, so that people could be clear about its meaning. In my view, the phrase ``motor salvage yard'' is readily understandable and fully explained, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Bob Russell: I still feel that mine is the more valid of the two points. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Right to enter and inspect premises (No. 1)—
`(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with. 
 (2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1). 
 (3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time— 
 (a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and 
 (b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part. 
 (4) A constable or an authorised person is seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so. 
 (5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.
 New clause 7—Right to enter and inspect premises (No. 2)— 
 `.(1) A constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to ascertain whether the provisions of this Part are being complied with and, if necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part. 
 (2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1). 
 (3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time— 
 (a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and 
 (b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part. 
 (4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so. 
 (5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.

John Bercow: I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, and on this occasion I am even more grateful to the gentleman on your left, who must not be identified.
 You are rightly enthusiastic, Mr. O'Brien, about the hectic rate of knots at which our consideration of the Bill is advancing. However, as I said in another context, we must not proceed too quickly, because matters need to be discussed. The central thrust of new clauses 6 and 7 is to try to tease from the Government whether they will consider—and if not, why not—the pursuit of a uniform and consistent approach to registered and unregistered motor salvage operators. 
 I do not intend to develop the argument at length, because I made it last week on registration plate suppliers, but the central point still applies. As observers who are attendant on our proceedings will be aware, the Government propose that, where a constable or other authorised person wishes to enter and inspect the premises of a registered motor salvage operator, he or she will not require a warrant. On the other hand, where such a person proposes to enter and inspect the premises of someone who is not a registered motor salvage operator, a warrant will be required. Our view in relation to plate suppliers, which applies with equal force in the context of motor salvage operators, is that that inconsistency is unjustified. 
 I recall the Minister saying previously—by his own high standards, he seemed to be flailing somewhat—that someone who is registered will have signed up to the regime. That implies that such a person is approving of, game for, or content with whatever enforcement or inspection might be visited upon him—a somewhat dangerous doctrine. By contrast, the Minister implied that an unregistered person would be treated, in relative terms, with kid gloves. 
 The Minister said that the difficulty with unregistered people is that there is no entry in the register for them and that it is impossible to ascertain whether illegal activity has taken place until the premises have been inspected—all there is to go on is a tip-off, and it is therefore appropriate that a warrant should be required. I did not find that argument persuasive. I still maintain that it is sensible and defensible either to require a warrant for the inspection of the premises of registered and unregistered salvage operators or to argue that a warrant should not be required in either case. This may be a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object, but it is worth airing the point. 
 As the Minister is aware, I wrote to him on 5 January in advance of the commencement of our proceedings to explain that I would table amendments on this subject that might seem too be—and, in a sense, are—contradictory, in order to tease out the Government's intentions and rationale and to allow the issues to be discussed. However, I feel no need to dwell further on the points that I made on registration plate suppliers. 
 I vouchsafe to members of the Committee that I err on the side of being libertarian in such matters. I recognise and respect the role of legitimate authority, including our great police force, but power should be exercised with responsibility. If an individual's premises, whether his private dwelling or his commercial outlet, are to be subject to entry and investigation—possibly without notice or at an uncertain time—it is not unreasonable that a warrant should be required. 
 I am aware that many hon. Members would argue the opposite, and I point out that this is not a party matter. My amendments were tabled in the names of official Opposition Members and on behalf of the official Opposition, but members of all parties have different views on the subject, as is the case with regard to identity cards. I believe that identity cards are profoundly un-British and I am deeply opposed to them because they offend my libertarian instincts, but I know that many Conservative Members feel differently—as does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for example. This debate should be conducted with mutual respect. I am not suspicious of the Government's motives, but their reasoning is a little off-cue or awry. 
 I rest my case, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister. I also look forward to any contributions that my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York and for Lichfield make.

Anne McIntosh: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, with the exception that I am in the category of hon. Members who would like to see the introduction of identity cards, albeit on a voluntary basis. In France, the system is entirely voluntary, but citizens cannot open a bank account or rent or buy property without possessing such a card. Perhaps registration through voluntary cards should be considered.

John Bercow: This has been a revealing moment in our proceedings. Nothing could dim the high esteem in which I hold my hon. Friend—

Anne McIntosh: And affection.

John Bercow: And affection, as my hon. Friend helpfully points out from a sedentary position. However, I am bound to say that my sensibilities have been somewhat offended by what she has just disclosed. I can only ask whether she is aware that I never knew that she was so strict. [Laughter.]

Anne McIntosh: I give way to the Minister.

Charles Clarke: That was territory on which I do not intend to tread. I am well aware of the tensions and difficulties in the parliamentary Conservative party, but I did not expect them to be so openly displayed today.
 I want to be clear about what the hon. Lady was saying. Was she commenting on registration in the context of a national identity card system, or was she saying that registration ought to be voluntary under the Bill? Voluntary registration would completely undermine the purpose of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for assisting me in that regard. I am suggesting that official registration could be accompanied by the voluntary carrying of a card that could act as proof of registration.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, I am extremely strict. I had an extremely strict upbringing, and it did me no harm. I remember with great fondness the months that I spent as a Member of the European Parliament, steering through what was purported to be—I realise that I am treading on dangerous ground now—an embryonic voluntary card. I refer to the new driving licence, which includes a barcode, a photograph of the holder and useful information such as the holder's blood group and any diseases or allergies from which he or she suffers. In the unfortunate event that you or any other hon. Member were involved in a road accident, Mr. O'Brien, such a voluntary card would be extremely useful. Its barcode could provide helpful information.

Charles Clarke: Does that relate to clause 9?

Anne McIntosh: Yes. However, I shall move on to safer ground that might cause less offence or concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.
 Why have the Government made no provision for the registration of premises, thereby leaving a big lacuna in the Bill? In asking that question, I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. New clauses 6 and 7 may appear, prima facie, to be contradictory, but are intended to tease out the information that my hon. Friend has forcefully and eloquently sought from the Minister. Was omission of the provision intentional, or do the Government intend to return to the matter before we conclude our proceedings? Registration of the premises would surely have been helpful, not only for those who ply the motor salvage trade, but to make the Bill as watertight as possible. 
 Clause 9 provides that a constable 
may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises for the time being entered in the register of a local authority
 for reasons that the clause proceeds to set out. Our new clauses 6 and 7 make a similar provision. As you, Mr. O'Brien, will appreciate, from the expert knowledge gained during our work together on the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and the Regions, my constituency is in North Yorkshire. I have difficulty with the clause as drafted and with new clauses 6 and 7 because North Yorkshire is currently 37 constables down on the figure for the total number of police officers who policed North Yorkshire on 1 May 1997. Sometimes, especially in the evenings, only two police officers are on duty to cover an area of 300 square miles.

Bill O'Brien: Order. I was listening carefully, but the hon. Lady is moving away from the question of inspections. I hope that she will return to the clause.

Anne McIntosh: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has depicted a worrying scenario in the Vale of York. I understand her extreme anxiety. However, will she confirm that she is saying that the requirement in both cases for a police constable to have a warrant before entering and inspecting premises—which would, as I suggested, be my preference—would impose a burden on the depleted force about which she is worried? Is that the thrust of her anxiety?
Miss McIntosh rose—

Bill O'Brien: Order. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Buckingham has said, but we are discussing the inspection of premises, and whether constables are available is another matter. I ask hon. Members to keep to the clause and the new clauses.

Anne McIntosh: The thrust of my argument is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham suggested, how, if the police simply are not available, a warrant can be requested and a constable asked to inspect the premises. That goes to the heart of the clause and is the subject of new clauses 6 and 7. Are the Government suggesting that police forces will have to use resources that are currently available, which have, as my hon. Friend and I have said, been severely depleted since 1997, or will the Government miraculously provide new funds for additional officers?

Charles Clarke: We debated that matter at length, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), responded in detail. I do not believe that there would be any value in my simply repeating what my hon. Friend said about the increase in police numbers for north Yorkshire, and, since it is all that I can do, I do not intend to do so. I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I have nothing further to say beyond what has been said, which adds up to a strong and positive record.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the Minister was trying to help me with his remarks, but the facts speak for themselves. We are currently 37 police officers down, and we have no prospect, even by the end of March 2002, of simply reverting to the position in 1997. It is hugely unfair to ask police officers to take on additional responsibilities.

Michael Fabricant: I share my hon. Friends' views, but I shall certainly not discuss the lamentable lack of policing in Lichfield, as I did so this morning. The clause contains echoes of the Kent County Council and Medway Council Bills and the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, which concerns, among other things, the registration of second-hand car dealers. The Act also requires registration. The hon. Member for Hall Green and I said at the time of the passage of that Bill that it was extraordinary that people who were law-abiding and chose to register were not protected by the usual conditions of the law that states that a constable cannot enter premises without a warrant, while the very people who had not registered and, by virtue of that, might be breaking the law were protected by magistrates courts and the common law. [Interruption.] I apologise to the Committee. I was distracted by a photograph of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York being passed to and fro.
 Given that when the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill were being discussed, arguments were advanced about the situation whereby a police officer can enter premises without his needing a warrant, there seems to be a breach of natural justice in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. Does the Minister accept that it is extraordinary that, if a trader is carrying out his business legitimately and registers, he no longer has the protection of a magistrates court, while those who are not registered and who may be carrying out their business in conflict with the law and the Bill, if it is enacted, have the protection of the law because a magistrates warrant is required? Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that point, instead of saying that such people signed up to such conditions?

Charles Clarke: I wish first to deal with the point of substance made by the hon. Member for Vale of York. I know that she has had some difficulty in Committee after the various exchanges that have been made, but I want to be helpful to her. Clause 2(3) makes it possible for the regulations to prescribe the details on the register.

John Bercow: I am sorry to intervene. I do not want to lower the tone of the Committee, because it is good at present. However, the Minister is being cheeky by making remarks about my hon. Friend experiencing difficulties. I want to put it on the record for the avoidance of doubt and in the knowledge that she will not contradict me, that she and I are good personal friends. Indeed, we have been sitting next to each other in the Chamber for more than two years.

Charles Clarke: Given my hitherto high regard for the hon. Member for Vale of York, I can only congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on his taste. However, I am sorry for the hon. Lady.
 Clause 2(3) enables regulations to prescribe the details on the register. That will include all premises that the applicant says are used for the business. They will thus, in effect, be registered premises subject to clause 9. Although the registration is of the organisation, the specifics of registration will include the premises where the work is done, thus meeting the point raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York.

Anne McIntosh: I wish simply to endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that we are firm personal friends. We enjoy each other's company on the third Bench and destroying the credibility of the Labour Government at Question time.
 As for the point raised by the Minister, clause 2(3) actually states: 
 Each person's entry in the register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.
 I am probably missing something, but where is the prescription of the description?

Charles Clarke: The word ``prescribed'' under clause 2(3) is defined in clause 15 as
``prescribed'' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
 As with all the regulations that we discuss in this Committee, they are being developed in consultation with the industry concerned, to make sure that they are accessible in the fullest possible way. 
 The clause sets out the rights of police to enter and inspect premises that they know or suspect are being used for the purposes of a motor salvage business. However, there are three perfectly legitimate alternatives. I agree with what the hon. Member for Buckingham said—one can take the line of new clause 6, which provides a warrant in all circumstances, one can take the line of new clause 7, under which no warrant is necessary in any circumstance or one can take the line of clause 9, which strikes a sensible balance, for reasons set out previously by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The clause distinguishes between registered and unregistered premises, allowing entry and inspection of registered premises without a warrant, and of unregistered premises with a warrant. 
 I do not want to repeat the Committee's extensive debate, but it is right that a registered business should be open to routine inspection by the enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Bill. Operators will have consented to such inspection when they applied for registration, and it would make no sense to require warrants to be obtained for such routine inspection. That is why there is a qualitative distinction between those premises that are registered, as consent has been given by the process of registration, and those that are not registered, as no such consent has been given, and it is appropriate that a warrant should operate. That is the reason for the distinction.

Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under new clause 6, a police officer undertaking an investigation into, say, a motor crash, and wanting to inspect a vehicle for evidential purposes, would, bizarrely, require a warrant?

Charles Clarke: That is my understanding. I return to what the hon. Member for Buckingham said—an argument can be made for that approach. An argument can also be made for the approach of new clause 7, under which no warrants are needed by police. It is far better to distinguish between registered premises, where people have made their choice and their judgment, and unregistered premises, where they have not. That is the approach of clause 9.
 I want to emphasise that, in arriving at this middle way, we have not been led by a blind desire to follow the third way at all times. It is entirely sustainable and correct to distinguish between organisations that have made an agreement through the register and those that have not.

John Bercow: I disagree with the Government's stance, but I understand and respect it. However, I am keen to establish clearly that it is simply a matter of the judgment that the Government have decided to make. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that, to his knowledge, no part of the criminal law forbids the police to enter unregistered premises without a warrant?

Charles Clarke: I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge, but that is not a very great confirmation, as my knowledge of the matter is very limited. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if what I have said is incorrect.
 I have made the case for the distinction, which echoes the arguments used by my hon. Friend Under-Secretary when he was dealing with the issue of number plates. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press new clauses 6 and 7 to a vote. I commend the clause to the Committee.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I do not wish to press the new clauses to a vote. We have rehearsed the issues, to which we may return. We have certainly had a good canter round the course.
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Notification requirements

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 7, line 4, leave out `(1),'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 76, in page 7, line 5, at end insert—
`(4A) A person who fails to give notice to an authority in accordance with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.

John Bercow: As everyone following the proceedings will be aware, we are now dealing with the notification requirements provided for in clause 10.
 Subsection (1) does not appear to add anything to the clause, so I do not understand why it is necessary and desirable. I can well understand the significance of subsection (4), which states that a 
person who fails to give notice to a local authority in accordance with subsection (1), (2) or (3) shall be guilty of an offence.
 However, subsections (2) and (3) contain the meat of the clause. Subsection (2) emphasises that someone 
who is registered in the register of a local authority shall give notice to the local authority of any changes affecting his entry in the register,
 and specifies that that should be done 
within 28 days of the changes occurring; and the local authority shall amend the register accordingly.
 The phrase ``within 28 days'' occurs in subsection (3), too. Those subsections impose specific requirements on operators, so it is clear why failure to fulfil those specific and clear requirements—although they are not necessarily exacting—should constitute an indictable offence. 
 I will make the following point in a moderate way, because I am not sure that I am right about it—in fact, I may be about to be told that I am wrong. It is not clear what the vague and less specific subsection (1) achieves. Subsection (2) uses specifics: if one does not notify the authority of changes within 28 days, one is committing an offence. Are Ministers suggesting that the relevant details may change from the time of the application's submission by the aspirant motor salvage operator and the time at which the application is determined? Is that the rationale behind the inclusion of subsection (1)? If that is what the Minister is going to tell me, I understand its logic. If it is not what he has in mind, I do not understand the practical significance of subsection (1). 
 I propose not only the deletion of subsection (1) but the insertion of the consequential amendment to subsection (4), so that there is no requirement for a reference to what was subsection (1). I hope that that is clear, and believe that I have made all the necessary points—but no, I suddenly discover, after a furtive rustle through my papers, that I might not have done so. Let me briefly set out my next argument. 
 Clause 1 stipulates that operating as a motor salvage operator without being registered is an offence punishable by a fine of £5,000. It is therefore strange, as I have argued in other contexts, to make it easy to avoid proper registration. Under clause 10, which deals with changes to details on the register, any change must be notified within 28 days—although there is no legitimate reason why it should not be 14 days, and a 28-day period leaves the system open to abuse. It seems wrong that any failure to keep details up to date should be punished by anything less than a £5,000 fine. Placing inaccurate details on the register is, in a sense, equivalent to not being registered at all. 
 The fine is a maximum; it will not be applied in every case. However, it is wrong to treat the offence of not changing inaccurate information in the same way as failing to inform the authority that one is no longer practising at all. To impose a level 5 fine, it would be necessary to delete ``(1),'' from clause 10(4), as we recommend, and insert a new provision. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Michael Fabricant: I want to reinforce the assertion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that some redundancy is evident in that this matter is largely covered by clauses 2 and 3. The Minister might concede that point, given that he accepted the necessity of adding to the Bill provisions for a fine in case clauses 2 and/or 3 are not adhered to. Those clauses are directly concerned with the provision of accurate information, as well as with the initial requirement to register information with the registrar.
 It is extraordinary that the Bill includes clause 10(1), which appears almost to duplicate previous clauses. Is that because it follows the format of another Bill or Act, or is it simply the result of bad drafting by the Minister's Department, which happens from time to time? The Home Office is producing a lot of legislation, some of it worth while and some of it not so worth while. If there is a drafting problem, the Minister should be brave and honest enough to admit it. If clause 10 duplicates earlier clauses, that might mean that it is not only redundant but in conflict with earlier clauses, which could open up a lacuna for lawyers. 
 If clause 10(1) is valid and does not duplicate earlier provisions, what penalties are in place, other than that stipulated in subsection (4), to ensure that it is enforced? Is a level 3 fine adequate for the purpose in this day and age? Is it a sufficient limitation on people who might deliberately go out of their way to deceive the registrar?

John Bercow: I note my hon. Friend's objection to a level 3 fine. Without wishing to put him on the spot, is he jumping for joy at my suggestion that a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale would be more appropriate?

Michael Fabricant: Yes. My hon. Friend is known to oppose unreasonable burdens on legitimate businesses, as do I and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York. However, these fines are to be imposed on people who deliberately go out of their way to provide false information, and the point of the Bill is to ensure that a register is provided to enable the police and other authorities to ensure that crime is mitigated, if not eliminated completely. Level 5 is reasonable, and I got the impression from the Minister during the earlier debate on clauses 2 and 3 that he thought so, too.
 Questions arise out of clause 10. First, is subsection (1) redundant, or does it conflict with the provisions of earlier clauses? Secondly, is subsection (4), which simply allows for a level 3 fine where inaccurate information is knowingly given, sufficient to deter the criminal? We all know that there are considerable profits to be made in the salvage industry and that there is therefore an incentive to commit crime. Such crime is committed and that is why the Bill is before us today.

Charles Clarke: This is not duplication, and the hon. Member for Buckingham is right in what he said. Clause 10(1) is aimed at those who have changed the details between submission and determination of their application. The issues raised earlier, which the hon. Member for Lichfield was concerned might create duplication, arose after submission had taken place and were not about changes in the process. This is about dealing with changes in the process.
 Amendment No. 75 would remove the offence of failure to notify the Secretary of State of any changes to application papers before registration. The hon. Member for Buckingham seeks to delete clause 10(1), but we feel that it is essential that information provided by applicants to local authorities that formed the basis of their decision to register should be kept up to date. This will help local authorities to ensure that motor salvage operators remain fit and proper persons and to maintain the integrity of the public register.

John Bercow: I can see the force of what the Minister is telling the Committee. I am glad that what I thought might be the rationale for the inclusion of the subsection turned out to be right. Does the Minister agree that while it might well be justified to make it an offence to fail to disclose information during the period in which the application is being considered, we do not want to encourage through dilatory processing, a greater number of offences than necessary. Will he therefore say something about the expected period within which applications will be determined, because that might tell us something about the frequency with which such situations are likely to arise. In other words, the more quickly applications can be determined, the less likely it is that there will be a change in material circumstances during the period of consideration and the less prone applicants will be to commit an offence.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I said in an earlier debate, we will be issuing guidance on the time scales involved because he is patently correct that the greater the delay, the worse the situation. It is clear that the clause does not cover false information; it deals with changes to information that goes through, but with no suggestion of falsity or anything of that kind.
 Amendment No. 76 deals with the level of the fine. We simply think that the level 3 fine is more appropriate than level 5, because the offence of not notifying changes in the required way is not as serious as failing to register as a motor salvage operator at all. It is obviously less serious not to mark the changes than not to register at all. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister of State because he has given a full and largely cogent explanation of his position. I certainly found the first of his explanations cogent, and it was naturally a joy for me to behold that he was able to confirm my suspicion as to the rationale for the inclusion of subsection (1). In other words, he was telling me that my amendment was not justified, but only because I was right in suspecting the reason why Ministers had not anticipated and provided for it. It is 50:50, or one set all. I am happy to rest content with that result, especially when I reflect on the fact that I am up against a senior, highly influential, greatly respected, heavily committed Minister with great ambitions, a very full diary and high expectations of his future.
 On the second amendment, the Minister has an argument, but I am not convinced that one offence is less serious than the other. However, I note his comments and I shall reflect on it. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Clause 11 - Offence of giving false particulars on sale for salvage

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Miller: I rise to clarify a point for the record. Clause 11 sets out a specific offence and, to avoid ambiguity in the minds of police officers and others concerned with offences that might result in a car being wrecked, I want my hon. Friend the Minister of State to confirm that the clause does not mean that a person who sells a wrecked motor car to a salvage operator cannot be charged with other offences. In such circumstances, a charge of, for example, misleading the police in the course of their inquiries and other charges might be appropriate. I have dealt with many cases in which vehicles have been illegitimately disposed of to disguise evidence when people have been involved in crashes that caused death or serious injury, and it is worth asking my hon. Friend to put on the record the fact that the provision does not preclude other offences relating to vehicles.

Michael Fabricant: I welcome the clause—it echoes the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991 and the Medway Council and Kent County Council Bills—which makes it an offence for someone who sells a vehicle to a salvage operator to fail to give information or give a false name and address. However, I question the level of the fine at level 3. The Minister has said clearly that there should be different levels so that someone who does not provide information or does not comply with the Bill innocently is fined at one level. He justified the level 5 fine by saying that it was right to impose a higher level when someone deliberately provided false information. Yet clause 11 states:
 Any person who, on selling a motor vehicle to a person who is in the course of carrying on business as a motor salvage operator ... gives that person a false name or address shall be guilty of an offence.
 That is quite right, but someone who gives a false name and address is clearly committing an offence with intent. The Minister of State defended the consistency of the Bill and argued correctly just before 7 o'clock that there should be two levels of fine, depending on whether someone committed an offence with intent or unwittingly. However, someone who gives a false name and address does so deliberately to commit a crime. It is right that clause 11 is in the Bill, but it should have teeth. The fine should be at a high enough level to provide those teeth, and it is questionable whether level 3 is high enough.

John Bercow: There is, as my hon. Friend poignantly observes, a distinction between intention to commit a serious crime and negligence. There is common ground between the Opposition and the Government because the Minister of State said that failing through negligence, incompetence, oversight or inattention, or a combination of all four, to provide requisite information is a lesser offence and should not be on a par with an intention to commit a serious offence. However, as my hon. Friend helpfully said, it could be argued that that was what was involved. When my hon. Friends and I were considering the Bill, we did not feel strongly enough to table an amendment on the issue. We tabled a great many amendments to other clauses, so we cannot be accused of insufficient tabling. However, there is an issue here: somebody who gives a false name and address is likely to be doing so as protection against discovery in relation to another crime. A deliberate intention to mislead, or arguably to defraud, is a serious matter. I do not use the word ``defraud'' lightly; I use it advisedly. Therefore, the Minister owes us an explanation of his judgment on the point before we give our assent to the clause.

Charles Clarke: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston the precise reassurances that he seeks in the most flowery terms I possibly can. Nothing in the Bill precludes dealing with other offences as they occur. For reasons that I shall give in a moment, it is necessary to have this offence, but there is no preclusion, and I am glad that he has given me the chance to make that clear.
 The clause makes it a summary offence for someone to give a false name or address to a salvage dealer when purchasing a vehicle. I emphasise ``to a salvage dealer'', not to the police or a local authority. The idea, and perhaps this will help to clarify the point helpfully raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham, is to deter people from, for example, falsely reporting that their car has been stolen in order to claim on the insurance, when in fact they have secretly sold it to a salvage dealer. It will also help to ensure the integrity of the salvage dealer's records. As we discussed earlier, salvage dealers will be obliged by regulation to keep full and accurate records that may be inspected by the police. 
 The judgment that we have made, and this addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield, is that giving a false name or address to a salvage dealer is a qualitatively different offence from giving a false name or address to the police or a local authority when they are collecting data as outlined in the Bill. It is still an offence, but at a qualitatively different level, which is why we have selected level 3. I should make it clear that level 3 applies only if no other offences have been committed. If someone commits other offences, such as giving a false name and address to people other than a salvage dealer, that may be taken into account. 
 I have dealt with the issue of the appropriate level of fine for an offence in three Standing Committees, without having the benefit of the knowledge that the hon. Member for Vale of York derived from her Scottish experience. As a non-lawyer, I confess frankly to the hon. Member for Buckingham that I find myself forced back to the point that one is making a balanced judgment of what is more or less serious. We chose level 3 because it seems to us that it is a less serious offence to give a false name or address to a salvage dealer than to give false information to the police or a local authority.

Michael Fabricant: If the object of the exercise is to commit a crime, I am not sure that it is morally less of an offence to give false information to a salvage dealer than to a police officer. To use the Minister's example, a crime committed against an insurance company is still a crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham pointed out, this is not a question of negligence; this is a question of deliberately setting out to give false information for financial gain. For that reason, it is irrelevant whether one gives false information to a salvage dealer, a police office or anyone else.

Charles Clarke: That is simply a repetition of the argument. I understand it, and I shall address it in a second when I conclude, after giving way again to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow: The Minister of State will probably accuse me of repetition, but, not surprisingly, my hon. Friend and I largely approach the matter from a similar perspective. That is healthy. If we did not, the Minister of State would accuse us of inconsistency and cutting across one another.
 Is the Minister of State making a value judgment about the perceived status of individuals depending on the profession in which they are engaged? Although that is often done in debate, it is dangerous. Is he not guilty of a certain sort of professional, as opposed to social, snobbery?

Charles Clarke: Certainly not snobbery—in no way. I am making a value judgment. We make value judgments every second when we consider amendments. Should we treat someone who gives a false name or address to a salvage dealer in the same way as someone who gives a false name or address to the police? The value judgment that I make is that we should ascribe different values to them, as we do in many things that we do. I agree that, in a philosophical sense, one is almost splitting hairs as regards the direction that one takes.
 I am giving my explanation, which I believe is consistent and reasonable. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he wants to vote against the clause that creates this offence. If he wants to, perhaps he will table an amendment on Report on the level of the offence so that we can have a debate around that, but I urge the Committee to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: I have noted what the Minister of State said. He is right to say that we can, if we wish, raise the matter at a later stage. My hon. Friends and I may choose to do so.

Anne McIntosh: Absolutely.

John Bercow: ``Absolutely'', says my hon. Friend, with gusto and enthusiasm from a sedentary position. We may return to these matters at a later stage, but I—I feel sure that my hon. Friends will take a similar view—am not inclined to prevent the approval of the clause at this stage.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Application of ``fit and proper'' test to companies etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I have a couple of technical queries about clause 12, the general principle of which there can be no argument against. The clause deals with the definition of who and who is not a fit and proper person to carry on a business. Subsection (1) deals with a limited company, while subsection (2) deals with a limited liability partnership.

Anne McIntosh: Does it not seem extraordinary that clause 11 should be taken out of context with clause 4?

Bill O'Brien: Order. We have dealt with clause 11. We are now on clause 12.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful, Mr. O'Brien. As the words are ``fit and proper person'', we should have considered clause 12 and clause 4 together.

Bill O'Brien: That is a matter for the Chair.

Michael Fabricant: I listen to what my learned and honourable Friend from the Vale of York says. No doubt she will be thinking of the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, to which we referred earlier, which deals with the keeping of a register. In that respect, I fully agree with her.

Charles Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Vale of York to allow her to explain the precise nature of the North Yorkshire Act for the benefit of the Committee? He has referred to it several times, but I am sure that his hon. Friend would be prepared to clarify the matter.

Bill O'Brien: Order. The hon. Lady may be prepared to do so, but I am not prepared to allow it.

Michael Fabricant: In clause 12 (1) it is proposed that
a local authority shall be satisfied that a company is not a fit and proper person to carry on business as a motor salvage operator if they are satisfied that any director of the company is not a fit and proper person to carry on such a business
 Earlier, we skirted the issue of directors acting as a front for an illegal business. I recall that the Minister said in effect that the buck had to stop somewhere and that in the Companies Act, it stopped with the directors of a company. I wonder whether clause 12 is limited in its effectiveness simply by the reference to directors of a company. Under the terms of the Companies Act, a director of a company is not just someone who is registered as such with Companies House, but anyone else who is accustomed to act for them. Nevertheless, although that is a tight definition in law, it is difficult to prove. Restricting the provisions of clause 12(1) to the directors of a company makes the lives of police officers particularly difficult.

Anne McIntosh: Assuming that I can offer my services to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, would he be disposed to put the question to the Minister rather than to the Committee?

Michael Fabricant: Yes. While I am addressing the Committee as a whole, I am asking the Minister for a specific answer. Do the Minister and other members of the Committee agree that restricting the criterion to directors of the company makes the job of police officers and the authority operating the register more difficult? I have said that I accept that in company law any director is a director, not simply those who are registered with Companies House. It is difficult to prove that someone is a director in that sense, unless there is evidence that directors registered with Companies House are acting under instruction from people who are not registered as directors. Why is the clause limited to directors? Should it not be extended to include management and staff in general? We have not chosen to table an amendment, because I suspect that the Minister might have a reasonable answer to this question, but he owes it to the Committee to tell us.
 My second point is about the reference in 12(2) to ``members of the partnership''. Why is the clause restricted to that of a limited liability partnership? There are not many of these and there are far more partnerships. Is the Minister saying that partnerships are not included because members of them are individuals and therefore not protected by law and would be prosecuted anyway? Or is this an omission? Most partnerships are not limited liability partnerships. My question to the Minister is simply this. Why does the Bill specifically mention a limited liability partnership and not partnerships in general? 
 My third and final point is that the criterion refers not to directors, because there are no directors of a partnership whether it is a limited liability partnership or a general partnership, but generally to the members of the partnership. However, to be a member of a partnership, one must have signed a partnership agreement or, if my memory serves me well—I read law some 30 years ago, so this may well be out of date—one must be understood to be a member of a partnership under the terms of the Partnership Act 1890. There may have been subsequent legislation. 
 Again I seek clarification. Just as in clause 12(1) the reference to ``any director'' unnecessarily limits the ambit of the clause—a clause that I welcome—surely the reference to ``any member of the partnership'' could exclude other influential people in the limited liability partnership. I say limited liability partnership because general partnerships are not mentioned in subsection (2). Not mentioning employees of the company could exclude them, even though they may have considerable influence over the partners. Again, what happens in the case of a front company the directors or partners of which are put up and do not know that they are committing an offence? The people lower down in the structure of the organisation are not covered by the clause. An organisation under inspection might well not be a fit and proper organisation to be registered and yet it would not come within the ambit of the Bill because the Bill is focused too tightly on the people at the top, while people lower down in the organisational structure may have the real power.

John Bercow: The fit and proper test is entirely sensible. I certainly do not cavil at it. That is the main reason why my hon. Friends and I have not proposed any amendment to the clause. However, before we give our assent to it, it is entirely reasonable to raise legitimate concerns. I am happy to concede that if my hon. Friend had been around for the first few sittings of the Committee and had been engaged in productive speculation about the Bill's contents rather than the unproductive and painful experience of being bitten by a spider he might have wanted to table an amendment. However, that opportunity did not arise for him and he has to make do with my genuine and earnest, albeit pedestrian efforts to amend the Bill.
 My concern here is not with the principle of the fit and proper test but with the issue of transparency. Transparency is something of a buzz word in our politics.

Charles Clarke: In your politics.

John Bercow: I am sure that the Minister is making a frightfully clever point, but it eludes me.

Keith Simpson: It is not transparent enough.

John Bercow: As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk wittily observes, it is not sufficiently transparent. My concern is with transparency. I ask the Minister to respond to this fairly straightforward challenge. Will the company that is refused registration or re-registration, or has its registration cancelled in the course of a financial year, be informed that one unfit and improper director or member of the partnership is preventing the registration from being continued? Will the applicant or registered operator be told exactly which director or member of the partnership was in such poor odour as to cause the business to fail to continue to be on the register? In other words, will it be done in a hole-and-corner fashion or are we to assume that where registration is not approved, those making the judgment of unfitness and impropriety will fully communicate the facts to the relevant operator? That is of the essence, so will the Minister clarify that straightforward point?

Charles Clarke: To deal with the last point first, under clause 5(2)(b):
 The local authority shall serve a notice on the person concerned stating... the reasons for it.
 Those reasons offer the transparency that the hon. Gentleman quite reasonably seeks. 
 I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Lichfield to clause 1(1): 
 Any person who carries on business as a motor salvage operator in the area of a local authority without being registered for that area by the authority shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
 That deals with sole traders and partners other than limited liability partners— individuals carrying on business in the specified way. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the provisions need to be wider to cover companies and limited liability partnerships. That takes us to clause 12(1) and (2), which demonstrate how that is to be done. We specify limited liability partnerships here because non-limited liability and ordinary partnerships are covered by clause 1(1). 
 The hon. Member for Lichfield's further two points amount to the same question—whether anyone other than the director or partners can play a significant role and should therefore be identified—and we debated it earlier in our proceedings. The legal responsibility of directors or partners is clear: it is absolute, and it remains so, however pernicious the influence acting on them. If the police were aware of such an influence and that blackmail or other illegal activities were taking place, further criminal offices could be considered. It would not be right, however, to specify in the Bill the process for identifying pernicious influences; it is better to say that responsibility lies with the organisation, its directors or partners. 
 An alternative would be to include a wider range of people, principally employees or business associates of the organisation. We could do that, but as I said earlier, it would amount to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and could undermine the fundamental principle that directors and limited liability partners are responsible. Those are the key issues, and I hope that the Committee will accept the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Proceedings for offences under Part I

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I wholly welcome the clause, particularly paragraph (b). My point relates not so much to the clause as to consistency in the Bill. The Minister argued powerfully against accepting our amendment to clause 6, under which there would be the right of appeal to the Secretary of State to extend the period during—

Bill O'Brien: Order. We are not discussing clause 6. There are 30 words in clause 13. It is very narrow and I ask the hon. Gentleman to stick to it.

Michael Fabricant: I shall take your advice Mr O'Brien. Why, when the Minister argued cogently in relation to another clause that the same thing would not be appropriate, is it considered appropriate in clause 13(b) to create a right of appeal under which an organisation other than a local authority or a constable can initiate proceedings but must make the appeal—I use the word in the broad, rather than the legal sense—to the Attorney-General?

Charles Clarke: The reason is straightforward. The purpose of the clause will be even more straightforward in just a second.

Keith Simpson: The Minister is on his own.

Charles Clarke: We in this Government are never on our own. We are strongly supported by our officials whom I applaud greatly for the work they have done throughout the Committee. The Opposition will not succeed in their efforts to divide us.

John Bercow: Can the Minister confirm that a piece of paper has wafted down to him from which he is now benefiting?

Charles Clarke: I can confirm two things. First, a piece of paper wafted down to me before this sitting even started from which I have benefited while presenting my views to the Committee. Secondly, in response to a question another piece of paper wafted down to me to help me elaborate my arguments in a way that I hope will be convincing to the Committee. I am happy to share with the Committee the contents of the first piece of paper.
 The clause allows for proceedings on offences under part I to be brought by a local authority or the police. Proceedings may not otherwise be brought except with the consent of the Attorney-General. That will ensure some control over private prosecutions. I was asked whether, other than stopping and filtering vexatious and malicious prosecutions, which is the obvious purpose of the Bill, and ensuring that local authorities do not have the burden of coping with a large number of private prosecutions, specific circumstances should be brought to the attention of the Committee. There were no such circumstances. The purpose of the clause, which refers to the consent of the Attorney-General, is to ensure we do not have vexatious litigants and can proceed effectively. That is a commonplace in many Bills.

Anne McIntosh: I bow to the Minister's authority. What other Bills contain such a clause?

Charles Clarke: The Minister's authority, as the hon. Lady knows, is almost endless, but on this occasion it does not extend to answering her question. I cannot cite other Bills. As an experienced parliamentarian, however, she will acknowledge that such provisions exist in other legislation. I am happy to write to her with other examples that may assist her.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Power to amend or repeal private or local acts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Mr. Bercow rose—

Michael Fabricant: He's just like Zebedee.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is accusing me of being like Zebedee. I think that Zebedee would have a view about that. If he were able to pursue action in the courts for defamation, he would do so. However, I cannot allow myself to be troubled unduly.

Michael Fabricant: Although I do not wish to introduce levity into the debate, does my hon. Friend not think that merely stating ``Boing!''—as Zebedee used to do—is not adequate for presenting an argument in a court?

Bill O'Brien: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not reply to that.

John Bercow: I shall apply Sellotape to my lips as a result of your instruction, Mr. O'Brien, but shall then rip it off to comment on matters on which you authorise me to speak, as opposed to those about which I am precluded from speaking.
 I am concerned about clause 14(2) because it involves what I might call the tantalising technique of creating just a little encouragement for the Opposition. There is a scintilla of hope—if I may pithily describe it thus—that the Secretary of State, in exercising the magisterial functions that the Bill's powers confer on him, will engage in some consultation. We are grateful for that. We are, of course, talking about the relatively dry but nevertheless important matter of the Secretary of State's power to amend or repeal private or local Acts 
if it appears to him necessary or expedient to do so in consequence of this Part.
 Subsection (2) refers to the exercise of the Secretary of State's power 
under subsection (1) in relation to any Act which concerns the area of a local authority or county council.
 It specifically stipulates that, in that circumstance, 
the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority or county council concerned.
 My response to that is ``goodie'', followed by a number of fairly straightforward questions to which I feel sure that the Minister will know the answers without the need for any pieces of paper to wing their way down to him from the highly qualified officials nearby. 
 First, how will the consultation be conducted? That is not specified in subsection (2). Is the consultation to be undertaken in writing and, in that sense, a formal process? Would it be legitimate for it to be conducted by a conference call by telephone to affected parties, without a minute—a little like last week's Programming Sub-Committee—still less a verbatim account of proceedings? Could the consultation be undertaken in a series of bilateral meetings with a Minister or designated officials acting on his or her behalf? We do not know, because the subsection does not tell us. Further and better particulars are required. 
 I am not suggesting that anything sinister is involved—[Laughter.] I suppose that I could suggest that: the Minister probably thinks that I am being rather generous in not doing so. Governments often wish to give the imprimatur of a consultation process, which really amounts to the briefest of confabs with one or two interviewees, selected because it is thought that they will be ready to listen to the ministerial line and then to acquiesce to it readily and without complaint. 
 We need to know the extent to which the consultation will be serious. Will it be in writing? Will it be undertaken at Member level or with very little attention from Members, even if it will ultimately be undertaken on their behalf by officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State? Will it be invested with the degree of seriousness that consultation between a Minister and a senior councillor would represent? 
 Secondly, over what period will the consultation be conducted? In a sense, that is inextricably bound up with the question of the consultation's authenticity and seriousness. Will it be undertaken over one, two or three months? Is the local authority obliged to consult among its wider membership or will the consultation be compartmentalised within the particular department of the district, borough or county council concerned? We know not, but it is uncertain whether the Department has given detailed thought to that point. 
 It is fairly certain that the Minister has not yet given it detailed thought. He is weighty, distinguished, influential, respected, busy and ambitious, and he has a very full diary. He has important responsibilities to discharge—a lot of rubber-chicken circuit dinners to attend, people to cultivate, friendships to maintain and new sources of influence to embrace. He has worthy objectives, so far be it from me—a humble junior servant of the masses—to cavil at what the Minister has on his plate.

Charles Clarke: I do not know about humble.

John Bercow: The Minister objects to the world humble; maybe I am not as humble as I should be, but I am a junior cog in the wheel. I am happy to serve the public purpose as my limited talents enable me to do. I certainly do not mix in the celebrated up-market circles with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar. I am but a Member of Her Majesty's Opposition, and am accustomed to consuming fish fingers for dinner. I make no complaint about that, although it is probably a long time since the Minister ate them. He mixes in altogether more exalted circles with distinguished and up-market people, who either are grand, think that they are grand or aspire to be grand—I know not which.

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is a proud graduate of the University of Essex?

Anne McIntosh: With first class honours.

John Bercow: I am delighted to do so, and am bound to say that that is a fair point for the hon. Gentleman to make. I think that I am right in saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—that that university is located in his constituency.

Bob Russell: No.

John Bercow: I am wrong—it is, then, located in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

Bill O'Brien: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham should stick to the business in hand, and not be provoked by the hon. Member for Colchester.

John Bercow: I will chat with the hon. Member for Colchester about the University of Essex, of which I am a graduate, on another occasion. I am grateful for the commendation of the quality of my degree offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York. However, I will not be diverted because you, Mr. O'Brien, mixing your avuncular manner with just a hint of menace, have emphasised that I should not.
 Let me focus on the consultation, and on how and when it will be conducted. Finally—and this point I can make in a pithy manner—will the details of the consultation, a summary of the discussions that took place and the results therefrom, be published? Will we have to take a ministerial interpretation of the consultation at face value?

Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Bercow: I am trying hard to conclude because I do not want to detain the Committee a moment longer than is necessary. I therefore put it on the record that I am being detained as I must give way to my hon. Friend simply out of my natural chivalry.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful. Is there not a huge omission on the part of the Government, who places such great credibility on regional government, in that there is no consultation with the regional development agencies? Does my hon. Friend not share my surprise at that?

Bill O'Brien: Order. We are not going to start discussing regional agencies. We will stick to the clause.

John Bercow: I will not animadvert to that point, because you have told me that I must not, Mr. O'Brien. However, I suppose that the point is narrowly relevant—it is probably relevant more widely, but I am not allowed to say so—in the sense that it suggests that less than full thought has been given to the composition of the clause. It would not be right of me to go further, but my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York makes a point that the Committee might usefully consider. ``Local authority'' is, by its nature, if not an all-embracing term, a term that incorporates a multitude of different categories.

Keith Simpson: Of sins.

John Bercow: Indeed, as my hon. Friend remarks, it sometimes embraces a multitude of sins. There is a degree of ambiguity and a degree of specificity in the clause. The ambiguity lies in the reference to the local authority, the specificity in the reference to a county council. I am not sure why it is thought appropriate to contain a reference to county council but not to a borough, district or city council. That is relevant. I hope that we are not getting county councilitis in this Committee, and that a political hegemony is not being exerted within the Home Office by what might be called the ``county council brigade''.

Charles Clarke: The county set.

John Bercow: Yes, I am bound to agree that ``set'' is the more appropriate term. I was not always a natural friend of what might be called the county set—and I think that the Minister will readily understand that—because, hailing as I do from the wing of the Conservative party that pays mortgages and buys his own furniture, I do not always identify with those people. However, there is a lack of specificity, and it would be helpful if there were some clarification.
 The case rests. It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York would prefer to develop her own argument at length, but within order. That would be an exacting challenge, to judge by the robust approach that you are now taking, Mr. O'Brien.

Anne McIntosh: Strictness.

John Bercow: Strictness is the order of the day—certainly as far as a Chairman, if not my hon. Friend, is concerned. I am happy to rest my case, and I look forward to the Minister's comments before we take the weighty decision on whether to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: My main concern relates to clause 14(1), but I should point out that, for one moment, I feared that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York was going to ask why the European Commission has been excluded from consultation. I was therefore delighted to discover that she was in fact talking about regional government.
 I have read clause 14(1) several times, and having argued that clause 12 was too specific, I think that this one is far too broad. It states: 
 The Secretary of State may by order amend or repeal any provision of a private or local Act passed before or in the same session as this Act, if it appears to him necessary or expedient to do so.
 That seems to be an extremely broad provision, given that there is no definition of what might constitute ``necessary'' or ``expedient''.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Michael Fabricant: Just a moment.
 I read and re-read clause 14(1) and it made no sense at all—until I consulted the explanatory notes. They state: 
 Clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to amend or repeal any private or local Act if it appears to conflict with this Act.
 Does omitting from clause 14(1) the sense of its explanatory note create an all-powerful clause that will enable the Secretary of State to amend or repeal any private or local Act passed before, or in the same Session as, this Bill, whether or not it conflicts with this Bill?

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is prescient, and he is also multi-faceted. He has many talents, most of which are available for public inspection, although others are perhaps not. Does he have the foggiest idea—the square root of a clue—which private or local Act, or Acts, the Government might have in mind? One cannot seriously believe that this apparently innocuous, brief and curiously elliptical clause was inserted without Ministers having at least some idea of the circumstances in which it will be invoked.

Michael Fabricant: Having read the explanatory notes, which, as ever, are very well written, I now understand what the clause is getting at. Certain local Acts or private Acts—I do not expect the Minister to give examples—could be in conflict with the Bill, although I find it hard to believe that such Acts exist. I see no reason why any Act should have been created that might so conflict. Nevertheless, it is good drafting that such a clause be included, just in case.

Stephen McCabe: As the hon. Gentleman is such an expert on the North Yorkshire Act, does he think it possible that Acts relating to the sale of second-hand goods, which might include motor vehicles, could contain provisions that conflicted with the Bill?

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. As I said, he and I had the joy of serving for several weeks on the Committee that considered the North Yorkshire Bill—although I was assured by certain parties that our considerations would take only a couple of weeks.

Bill O'Brien: Order. That is the fifth time that reference has been made to the North Yorkshire Act, and it is time that we drew the matter to a close.

Michael Fabricant: I was merely going to say that I do not see how that Act would conflict in any way with the Bill. However, that is not the point. I am not saying that there are no such Acts. I accept that it is right and proper that Home Office drafters should think it fit to include the clause in case there was—or were, to use the subjunctive—an Act—

Anne McIntosh: Conditional.

Michael Fabricant: Well, conditional and subjunctive are the same thing. We must not get into philology, as that would be out of order.
 I can understand that there may be an Act that would conflict with the Bill. However, the drafting of the clause may not be tight enough to restrict the Secretary of State to repealing or amending only an Act that, in the words of the explanatory notes, 
appears to conflict with this Act. 
Does the Minister agree with the wording of the explanatory notes?

Charles Clarke: Yes.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister says yes from a sedentary position. Does he not therefore agree that the Bill would be clearer if the words that I quoted were included in clause 14(1)?

Charles Clarke: No.

John Bercow: I am much impressed by the advocacy of my hon. Friend. I noticed the alacrity and immediacy with which the Minister of State said that he agreed with the explanatory notes from which my hon. Friend quoted. Perhaps he can therefore tell us immediately, and preferably word for word, exactly what the explanatory notes to clause 14 say.
Mr. Clarke rose—

Bill O'Brien: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham is intervening on an intervention by the hon. Member for Lichfield.

Michael Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Fabricant: I will give way to the Minister if he is not merely going to prove that he can read by reading from the explanatory notes.

Charles Clarke: I rise because the hon. Member for Buckingham, in the course of the games that he plays—I shall turn to his pedantry in a moment—asked whether I knew what I was talking about. In fact, I carefully read the relevant paragraph of the explanatory notes some three or four minutes ago during the rather boring speech by the hon. Member for Lichfield, so I was well aware of its contents by the time that I was asked the question.

Michael Fabricant: As soon as the Minister says that an Opposition Member is boring, he issues a challenge to that Member to be even more boring and to go on and on—remaining in order for the whole time—for 50 or 55 minutes or an hour. I think that he is trying to provoke me.

Bob Russell: The hon. Gentleman is easily provoked.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Colchester made that intervention from a sedentary position. As we serve on the same Select Committee, he knows me well.

Bill O'Brien: Order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to return to the business of the Committee and to speak to clause 14.

Michael Fabricant: Of course, Mr. O'Brien, I shall take that on board and concentrate on clause 14—[Interruption.] The more interventions that are made, the more I shall be delayed in reaching a conclusion.
 Clause 14(1) appears to be extremely broad. It is not a Henry VIII clause; it is an Adolf Hitler clause. It seems to give the Secretary of State the power to amend or repeal any private or local Act passed before or in the same Session as this Bill if he thinks it is ``necessary or expedient'' to do so. How many times did Hitler decide to do things because he though it expedient? Although the Minister has many faults, some of which we discussed earlier today, I know that he is not unnecessarily exhaustive in his use of power. Given that he has been listening to my speech and that he has been reading the explanatory notes, which state specifically that the provision can apply to a local Act only if it appears to conflict with the Bill, why will he not agree to using those words in the Bill, which would then limit the Secretary of State's powers? I give way to my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I certainly have no desire that his speech should end, and I would not ordinarily wish to interrupt his flow, but I hope that he will he take it from me that one benefit—probably the only obvious benefit—that would flow from his concluding his remarks within the time scale would be that we had a chance to hear from one or other of the two members of the Committee from whom we have so far heard absolutely nothing. They might volunteer a contribution. Is my hon. Friend aware—he was away last week—that neither the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is serving his last few weeks in the House, nor the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who is most assiduous and highly articulate and exceptional, has contributed?

Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. What on earth does that have to do with clause 14?

Bill O'Brien: Absolutely nothing. I call Mr. Fabricant.

Michael Fabricant: All that I can say to my hon. Friend is yes. I shall therefore resume my seat, and I expect the two hon. Members who have not yet spoken to say something. When I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I spoke on a Treasury Bill. I am sure that the PPS will speak today.

Charles Clarke: No point of substance has been raised. I therefore move that clause 14 stand part.

Bill O'Brien: The question is that clause 14 stand part.
Mr. Bercow rose—

Bill O'Brien: Order.

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. We have not concluded our debate on clause 14 stand part. It is a serious matter. I do not want the Committee to finish on a bad note, because the Minister has generally been good natured and accommodating in his responses. However, it is the height of arrogance to conclude as he suggests. I asked specific questions, which have not been answered. If the Minister wants trouble, he is going the right way about it.

Bill O'Brien: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. I consider that the Committee is repeating much of what was said previously. I have been generous, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to vote against clause 14, that is his prerogative.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Interpretation of Part I

Bob Russell: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 15, page 8, line 16, leave out `substantial'.
 As the word ``substantial'' is superfluous, I move that it be deleted. 
Mr. Bercow rose—

Charles Clarke: The amendment has been withdrawn.

John Bercow: No, it has not. The hon. Gentleman was making a succinct case for his amendment. He said that the word ``substantial'' was not needed.
 It being half-past Nine o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to Order of the Committee [this day]. 
 Adjourned till Thursday 18 January at five minutes to Ten o'clock.